Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Idaho Amalgamated Sugar Company Nampa BART Alternative, 23273-23278 [2014-09248]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
We conclude that labeling provisions
of this rule are not subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget
because they do not constitute a
‘‘collection of information’’ under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
Fortification.’’ Institute of Medicine, National
Academy of Sciences, 2003.
4. Letter from FDA/CFSAN to Advocates
for Better Children’s Diets. Docket No. FDA–
2004–N–0382; Document ID FDA–2004–N–
0382–0004.
5. Data from Mintel Global New Products
Database, Mintel Group, Ltd., https://
www.mintel.com, accessed January 29, 2014.
VII. Federalism
We analyzed this final rule in
accordance with the principles set forth
in Executive Order 13132. Section 4(a)
of the Executive order requires Agencies
to ‘‘construe . . . a Federal statute to
preempt State law only where the
statute contains an express preemption
provision or there is some other clear
evidence that the Congress intended
preemption of State law, or where the
exercise of State law conflicts with the
exercise of Federal authority under the
Federal statute.’’ Federal law includes
an express preemption provision that
preempts ‘‘any requirement respecting
any claim of the type described in
section 403(r)(1) [21 U.S.C. 343(r)(1)]
made in the label or labeling of food that
is not identical to the requirement of
section 403(r) [21 U.S.C. 343(r)]. . . .’’
Section 403A(a)(5) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 343–1(a)(5)). However, this
statutory provision does not preempt
any State requirement respecting a
statement in the labeling of food that
provides for a warning concerning the
safety of the food or component of the
food (Pub. L. 101–535, Section 6 (1990)).
This final rule prohibits certain nutrient
content claims for certain omega-3 fatty
acids in the label or labeling of food
under section 403(r) of the FD&C Act.
Dated: April 22, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VIII. References
The following references have been
placed on display in the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food
and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852
and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and are available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov. (FDA has verified
the Web site addresses, but FDA is not
responsible for any subsequent changes
to Web sites after this document
publishes in the Federal Register.)
1. ‘‘Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy,
Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids,
Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids.’’
Institute of Medicine, National Academy of
Sciences, 2005.
2. Letter from the Institute of Medicine of
the National Academies to FDA/CFSAN.
Docket No. FDA–2004–N–0382; Document ID
FDA–2004–N–0382–0035.
3. ‘‘Dietary Reference Intakes: Guiding
Principles for Nutrition Labeling and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
[FR Doc. 2014–09492 Filed 4–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2012–0581; A–1–FRL–
9909–37–Region-10]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Idaho
Amalgamated Sugar Company Nampa
BART Alternative
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a revised
Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) determination for The
Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC
(TASCO) facility, located in Nampa,
Idaho. On June 22, 2011, the EPA
approved Idaho’s regional haze state
implementation plan (SIP), including its
BART determination for the TASCO
facility, as meeting the visibility
protection requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). On June 29, 2012, the State
submitted a regional haze SIP revision,
including a new BART determination
for the TASCO facility that consisted of
a stricter emission limit for oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), a stricter emission limit
for particulate matter (PM), and an
alternative control measure (BART
Alternative) to replace the previously
approved BART determination and
emission limit for sulfur dioxide (SO2).
The EPA is fully approving this SIP
revision.
SUMMARY:
Effective Dates: This final rule is
effective May 28, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0581. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
23273
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the State and Tribal Air Programs Unit,
Office of Air Waste and Toxics, EPA
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
WA 98101. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy
of the docket. You may view the hard
copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Body, EPA Region 10, Suite 900,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The
phone number is (206) 553–0782 and
email at body.steve@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act, CAA, or
Clean Air Act mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates
otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our
mean or refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to
State Implementation Plan.
(iv) The words Idaho and State mean
the State of Idaho.
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background Information
In the CAA Amendments of 1977,
Congress established a program to
protect and improve visibility in the
national parks and wilderness areas. See
CAA section 169A. Congress amended
the visibility provisions in the CAA in
1990 to focus attention on the problem
of regional haze. See CAA section 169B.
The EPA promulgated regional haze
regulations (hereafter the ‘‘RHR’’) in
1999 to implement sections 169A and
169B of the CAA. These regulations
require states to develop and implement
regional haze SIPs to ensure reasonable
progress toward improving visibility in
mandatory Class I Federal areas 1 (Class
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
E:\FR\FM\28APR1.SGM
Continued
28APR1
23274
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see
also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71
FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
The RHR requires each state’s regional
haze SIP to contain emission limitations
representing BART and schedules for
compliance with BART for each source
subject to BART, unless the state
demonstrates that an emissions trading
program or other alternative will
achieve greater reasonable progress
toward natural visibility conditions. A
state may opt to implement or require
participation in an emission trading
program or other alternative measure
rather than require sources subject to
BART to install, operate, and maintain
BART.
On April 16, 2007, Idaho submitted to
the EPA for approval, new and revised
rules that provide the Idaho Department
of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) the
regulatory authority to address regional
haze and to implement BART. The EPA
approved these rules on June 9, 2011. 76
FR 33651. Idaho submitted to EPA a
regional haze SIP to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 on
October 25, 2010 (2010 RH SIP). The
2010 RH SIP covered the planning
period from 2008 through 2018 and,
among the other required elements,
included a BART determination for the
TASCO facility.2 On June 22, 2011, the
EPA approved the BART-related
provisions of Idaho’s 2010 RH SIP,
including the final BART determination
for the TASCO facility.3 76 FR 36329.
That approval incorporated by reference
the September 7, 2010 TASCO Tier II
Operating Permit No. T2–2009.0105
(2010 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit)
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the
Clean Air Act, EPA, in consultation with the
Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156
areas where visibility is identified as an important
value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The
extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and
tribes may designate as Class I additional areas
which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in section 169A of the Clean Air
Act apply only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal
areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ 42
U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’
in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I
Federal area.’’
2 TASCO operates a sugar beet processing facility
in Nampa, Idaho that includes a fossil fuel-fired
boiler which is referred to as the ‘‘Riley boiler.’’ The
Riley boiler is the only BART-eligible unit at the
TASCO facility, and it is subject to BART.
3 Upon EPA’s final action in 2011, TASCO filed
a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals challenging EPA’s approval of Idaho’s
BART determination for their Nampa facility. See
Amalgamated Sugar v. EPA, No. 11–72445 (9th
Cir.) The case is pending before the Ninth Circuit.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
that contained the BART emission
limits for the TASCO facility. On
November 8, 2012, the EPA took final
action to approve the remaining
elements in the 2010 RH SIP. 77 FR
66929. Thus, Idaho’s 2010 RH SIP is
fully approved.
On June 29, 2012, Idaho submitted
revisions to the 2010 RH SIP that
address BART for the fossil fuel-fired
Riley boiler at the TASCO facility (2012
RH SIP). The 2012 RH SIP contains: A
revised NOX BART determination with
a more stringent NOX emission limit; a
more stringent PM BART emission
limit; and a BART Alternative to replace
the federally approved SO2 BART
determination. In addition to the more
stringent NOX and PM emission limits
for the Riley boiler, the BART
Alternative relies on control of NOX
emissions from two non-BART-eligible
boilers at the TASCO facility. The BART
Alternative also takes into account
emission reductions resulting from the
permanent shutdown of three coal-fired
pulp-dryers. The revised NOX BART
determination and emission limitation,
more stringent PM emission limitation,
and the BART Alternative are contained
in a revised Tier II Operating Permit,
T2–2009.0105, issued to TASCO on
December 23, 2011 (2011 TASCO Tier II
Operating Permit). Idaho included the
permit as part of the 2012 RH SIP. On
June 28, 2013, 78 FR 38872, EPA
proposed to approve the revised NOX
BART determination and emission
limitation, to approve the revised PM
BART emission limitation, to vacate the
previously approved SO2 BART
determination, and to approve the
BART Alternative. Additional details
regarding the revisions are explained in
the June 28, 2012 Federal Register
notice and in Idaho’s 2012 RH SIP. As
explained below, the BART Alternative
and revised permit result in greater
reasonable progress toward natural
visibility conditions than the
improvement expected from the
previously approved BART
determination. Therefore, the EPA is
taking final action to approve the 2012
RH SIP as proposed.
II. Response to Comments
We received one comment letter, from
the National Park Service, on the
proposed action. The comments can be
summarized into three elements: (1)
Whether selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) is technically feasible; (2) whether
the incremental cost of SCR was
properly considered; and (3) whether
the emission reductions from the
permanent shutdown of three pulp
dryers are surplus for purposes of the
BART Alternative.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comment: The commenter requests
that the IDEQ and the EPA reconsider
the original BART determination for the
Riley boiler and evaluate the technical
feasibility of selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) or in the alternative,
provide additional justification for why
SCR was eliminated from consideration.
The commenter asserts that SCR is
technically feasible and economically
reasonable. In regards to the technical
feasibility of SCR, the commenter argues
that tail-end SCR (reheating an exhaust
gas stream to proper temperature) has
been in use around the world for
decades. The commenter states that
neither Idaho nor the EPA made any
showing that tail-end SCR would not be
technically feasible at TASCO. Instead,
the EPA relied upon Idaho’s analysis,
which concluded: ‘‘[I]nstallation after
the baghouse would not provide
adequate exhaust temperature for SCR
to function properly. . . . Thus, the
2012 RH SIP submittal finds that LNB
is the only technically feasible NOX
control technology for the Riley Boiler.’’
The commenter concludes that if the
only issue preventing application of tailend SCR at TASCO is temperature, then
EPA should investigate the cost of
reheating the gas stream—which is
typical for tail-end SCR, turning the
issue into one of economic feasibility.
Neither Idaho nor the EPA addressed
how the cost of reheating the gas stream
impacts the economic feasibility of SCR.
Response: EPA disagrees with the
commenter that SCR is BART for the
Riley boiler. We do not think that it is
necessary to evaluate Idaho’s conclusion
that the installation of SCR to the Riley
boiler is technically infeasible in order
to reach this conclusion. Assuming for
the sake of argument that SCR is
technically feasible, Idaho adequately
demonstrated in its 2010 RH SIP that
the high incremental cost-effectiveness
and low incremental visibility
improvement associated with SCR,
when compared with low NOX burners
with overfire air (LNB/OFA), precluded
SCR’s selection as BART. Adjusting
these calculations to take into account
the stricter NOX emission limit in
Idaho’s 2012 RH SIP would increase the
incremental cost and reduce the
incremental visibility improvement of
SCR even further. Finally, if Idaho or
EPA were to investigate the additional
cost of reheating the gas stream, as the
commenter suggests, the only possible
result would be a conclusion that SCR
is less economically feasible.
Comment: The commenter questions
our reliance on the use of incremental
costs (for determining cost-effective
controls), which the commenter states
are subject to manipulation by the
E:\FR\FM\28APR1.SGM
28APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
introduction of invalid control strategies
that bias the analysis against higherperforming control strategies. The
commenter states that in this case, when
the LNB/OFA option is eliminated due
to technical infeasibility (as presented
in the 2012 SIP), the incremental cost
between SCR and LNB shrinks to
$7,327/ton which, in its view, is not a
significant enough incremental
difference to justify rejecting SCR.
The commenter also claims that the
EPA and Idaho have placed undue
weight on incremental costs and states
that because of the exponential nature of
pollution control costs versus removal
efficiency, incremental costs will always
exceed average costs. The commenter
further asserts that the EPA has
provided no guidance on what an
acceptable incremental cost might be,
other than to say in the BART
Guidelines:
The average cost (total annual cost/total
annual emission reductions) for each may be
deemed to be reasonable. However, the
incremental cost (total annual cost A–B/total
annual emission reductions A–B) of the
additional emission reductions to be
achieved by control B may be very great. In
such an instance, it may be inappropriate to
choose control B, based on its high
incremental costs, even though its average
cost may be considered reasonable.
(Emphasis added by commenter)
The commenter provides examples
from North Dakota and Oregon to
support its claim that in this case, the
incremental cost of SCR over LNB is
$7327/ton (as calculated by the
commenter), and this incremental cost,
in combination of an average costeffectiveness of $3768/ton, is
reasonable.
Response: The BART Guidelines
suggest that states calculate and
consider incremental cost-effectiveness
in combination with average cost-
effectiveness when considering whether
to eliminate a control option. 40 CFR
part 51, Appendix Y, (IV)(D)(4)(e).
However, as stated previously, BART
determinations are based on the
consideration of five factors, cost of
compliance being only one of the five.
The RHR requires that compliance costs
be weighed, among other factors, against
the visibility improvement achieved
from each particular control technology.
Further, it appears that the
commenter improperly calculated the
incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR
over LNB. The commenter reports a
value of $7327/ton by using the original
performance of LNB in the 2010 RH SIP,
rather than the revised, more stringent
NOX emission limit in the 2012 RH SIP.
The commenter’s calculation appears to
assume a 50% control efficiency for
LNB with an emission reduction of 521
ton/yr from the base case of 1042 ton/
yr. Using the revised emission limit of
147 lb/hr, the emission reduction from
LNB is 632 ton/yr, and represents a
control efficiency of 60%. When the
incremental cost is calculated based on
SCR cost and emission reduction
compared to the original LNB costs and
new LNB performance of 147 lb/hr, the
incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR
over LNB is $9982/ton.
The Oregon example provided in the
comments, which states that, ‘‘Oregon
DEQ established a cost/ton threshold of
$7300/ton based upon the premise that
improving visibility in multiple Class I
areas warrants a higher cost/ton than
where only one Class I area is affected.’’
does not demonstrate Idaho
inappropriately considered cost of
compliance. See footnote 1 of the
comments. Additionally, as noted below
in the discussion of visibility
improvement, use of SCR over the
proposed BART limit of 147 lb/hr
would only provide for a 0.03 dv
23275
improvement on the 22nd best day over
three years at the Class I area most
impacted by TASCO. The commenter’s
examples do not demonstrate that
Idaho’s decision regarding costeffectiveness is unreasonable.
Idaho determined that the cost
effectiveness of SCR at $3768/ton is a
reasonable cost for the TASCO facility.
However, Idaho calculated the
incremental cost of SCR over LNB/OFA
at $10,245/ton and determined that the
cost for an additional 15% increase in
removal efficiency is relatively high. See
2010 RH SIP Chapter 10, Section 10.5.1.
We also note that the annualized cost
for SCR, as used in Idaho’s calculation,
does not take into account the added
cost for design, installation and
operation of equipment that would be
necessary to re-heat the exhaust gases
after the baghouse. Nor did this
calculation account for increased
emissions from the exhaust gas reheater. Thus, the incremental costeffectiveness value of SCR over LNB is
likely to be even greater.
The EPA also considered the
incremental cost along with the degree
of expected improvement in visibility
from SCR and the visibility
improvement expected from the revised
NOX BART determination. In the 2012
RH SIP, Idaho provided a revised
visibility analysis and compared the
visibility improvement expected to
result using the new, more stringent
NOX emission limit for LNB to the
visibility improvement expected from
SCR. Table 1 below shows the emission
reductions for LNB with the new
emission limit and SCR at the Class I
area most impacted by the TASCO
facility, the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area.
Table 1 also shows the visibility
improvement over base year conditions
for each technology.
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF NEW LNB EMISSION LIMIT WITH SCR EAGLE CAP WILDERNESS AREA
Base
emissions
Control Technology
Base Case .........................................................................
New LNB BART .................................................................
SCR ....................................................................................
Emission
reductions
1042
1042
1042
Controlled
emissions
0
1042
1 632
1 410
4 938
4 104
Annualized
costs
0
479,841
3,534,384
98th %
3 years
1.4 dv ......
0.64 1 .......
0.61 4 .......
Days above
0.5 dv over
3 years
3 97
2 60
4 40
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1 Values from TASCO BART Alternative Statement of Basis, TASCO Best Available Retrofit Technology Determinations Revised October 31,
2011,Tables 10 and 11.
2 From Modeling of new BART determination using 147 lb/hr for LNB (Table 4, ‘Statement of Basis’, 2012 RH SIP)
3 Assumes pulp dryers shutdown; from 2010 SIP Submittal, Appendix F, TASCO BART Determination modeling.
4 2010 SIP Submittal, Appendix F, TASCO BART Determination, Table 37, page F–312.
Table 1 shows that the incremental
visibility improvement of SCR over the
new LNB BART is 0.03 dv. An
incremental cost of $9982/ton as
discussed previously and an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
incremental improvement of just 0.03
dv at the most impacted Class I area
clearly support SCR’s elimination as
BART. These values are both outside the
ranges that states and EPA have found
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
to be reasonable in other actions. The
commenter has provided no information
to suggest that either of these values
were calculated incorrectly.
E:\FR\FM\28APR1.SGM
28APR1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
23276
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: The clear implication of
EPA’s advice in the BART Guidelines is
that incremental costs become a
deciding factor only if they greatly
exceed average costs. For TASCO, the
incremental cost is less than double the
average cost—this is well below the
order of magnitude presented in the
BART Guidelines example, and is
relatively low when compared to other
incremental cost analyses. If Idaho and
EPA are to use incremental costs to
eliminate a control option, it should be
clear how those incremental costs are
excessive when compared to
incremental costs that have been
accepted elsewhere. EPA should also
explain what its threshold for an
acceptable incremental cost is, and how
it arrived at that threshold.
Response: There is no incremental
cost threshold for BART that applies in
every case. As explained above, a BART
decision is made case-by-case,
considering all five factors. In the
TASCO facility case, the State
calculated the cost-effectiveness of SCR
to be $3768/ton, and we calculated the
incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR
over LNB (with the new emission limit)
to be greater than $9982/ton. We
recognize that standing alone the
differential between average and
incremental cost-effectiveness may or
may not justify rejecting the technology.
However, because a BART
determination is based on consideration
of a number of factors, neither the
incremental cost nor the average costeffectiveness value alone should
determine BART. In this case, the
incremental visibility improvement is
important. Considering the Eagle Cap
Wilderness Area, the Class I area most
impacted by the Riley boiler, NOX
BART with an emission rate of 147 lbs/
hr will reduce the 98% day impact from
1.4 dv to 0.64 dv, while SCR with an
emission rate of 37 lb/hr would reduce
it to 0.61 dv. See Idaho 2010 RH SIP,
Appendix F, TASCO Nampa BART
Determination Table 34. While SCR may
result in an increased visibility
improvement, the incremental
improvement between LNB and SCR is
just 0.03 dv, too small to justify the
more stringent control technology’s high
incremental cost.
Comment: The commenter says that
taken at face value, it looks like the
proposal is for a greater NOX reduction
in exchange for a lesser SO2 reduction
from the only BART source, the Riley
boiler. The commenter believes that the
‘‘new information’’ presented by Idaho
requires a re-analysis of tail-end SCR.
Response: We do not understand how
the above comment applies to the
proposed BART Alternative for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
Riley boiler. The SO2 BART Alternative
consists of:
• Installing and operating LNB on the
non-BART Babcock and Wilcox (B&W)
boilers #1 and #2 with a combined
emission limit of 103 lb/hr; and
• Permanently shutting down three
pulp dryers.
The BART Alternative does not
involve NOX reductions from the Riley
boiler, so the technical feasibility of SCR
is not relevant to the BART Alternative.
Comment: The commenter expressed
concern that credit for emission
reductions achieved by the shutdown of
the pulp driers may not be ‘‘surplus’’
and therefore not allowed under the
RHR if these units were shut-down as a
result of another regulatory action under
the CAA (i.e., compliance with the
NAAQS for PM10). The comment notes
that the EPA refers to permitting actions
which required shutdown of the pulp
dryers and requests clarification as to
why such requirements were necessary
and asks that the EPA confirm that these
reductions are truly surplus in the RHR
context.
Response: We have confirmed that the
emission reductions that will result
from the BART Alternative are surplus.
The RHR requires that emission
reductions resulting from an alternative
measure must be ‘‘surplus to those
reductions resulting from measures
adopted to meet requirements of the
CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.’’
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). When
promulgating this requirement in 1999,
the EPA explained that emission
reductions must be ‘‘surplus to the
Federal requirements as of the baseline
date of the SIP, that is, the date of the
emissions inventories on which the SIP
relies.’’ See 64 FR 35714, 35742. See
also 70 FR 39143 (explaining that
‘‘[W]hatever the origin of the emission
reduction requirement, the relevant
question for BART purposes is whether
the alternative program makes greater
reasonable progress.’’) The Idaho RH SIP
relies on emission inventories from
2002. See Idaho 2010 SIP, Section 8.1.
Thus, reductions resulting from any
measure adopted to meet requirements
of the CAA after 2002 are considered
‘‘surplus’’ under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv). Therefore, the emission
reductions from the NOX control from
B&W boilers #1 & #2 as proposed in the
State’s permit, along with the shutdown
requirements for the pulp dryers, are
indeed surplus.
III. Final Action
The EPA is vacating our previous
approval of the State’s NOX and SO2
BART determinations and emission
limits for the TASCO facility and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
approving Idaho’s 2012 RH SIP
submittal that includes a revised BART
determination and emission limit for
NOX and a revised PM emission limit,
vacates the previously approved SO2
BART determination, and approves the
BART Alternative for SO2. Specifically
we are approving the 2011 TASCO Tier
II Operating Permit, T2–2009–0105,
issued by Idaho on December 23, 2011,
conditions 1.2 (including the table of
Regulated Emission Point Sources),
permit conditions 3.2, 3.3 (first
paragraph only), 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8,
3.9, 3.11, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, and 4.1.
The EPA is approving new BART
emission limitations for NOX and the
revised emission limits for PM. The EPA
is also approving the BART Alternative
at the TASCO facility because it
provides for greater overall reasonable
progress.
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders
Review
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
E:\FR\FM\28APR1.SGM
28APR1
23277
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
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. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by June 27, 2014.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review 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 section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility,
and Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 20, 2014.
Daniel D. Opalski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart N—Idaho
2. Section 52.670 is amended as
follows:
■ a. In paragraph (d) by removing the
entry for ‘‘The Amalgamated Sugar
Company LLC—Nampa Factory, Nampa,
Idaho’’ and adding in its place the
following entry for ‘‘The Amalgamated
Sugar Company LLC—Nampa Factory,
Nampa, Idaho.’’
■ b. In paragraph (e) by adding one
entry to the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
■
§ 52.670
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
EPA—APPROVED IDAHO SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1
Name of source
Permit No.
*
The Amalgamated Sugar
Company LLC—Nampa
Factory, Nampa, Idaho.
*
*
State effective date
*
T2–2009.0105
*
*
12/23/11 (date issued) .........
*
*
EPA approval date
Explanation
*
*
*
4/28/14 [Insert page number The following conditions; 1.2,
where the document beincluding the table of Reggins].
ulated Emission Point
Sources Table, 3.2, 3.3
(first paragraph only), 3.4,
3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9,
3.11, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15,
3.16, and 4.1
*
*
*
1 EPA
does not have the authority to remove these source-specific requirements in the absence of a demonstration that their removal would
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any prevention of significant deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality may request removal by submitting such a demonstration to EPA as a SIP revision.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Name of SIP provision
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
State
submittal date
*
*
*
Regional Haze SIP Revision .. State-wide ..............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
*
6/29/12
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA approval date
*
4/28/14 [Insert page number
where the document begins].
E:\FR\FM\28APR1.SGM
28APR1
Comments
*
*
The portion of the Regional
Haze SIP relating to BART
for the TASCO, Nampa facility,
23278
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
3. Section 52.672 is amended by
adding paragraphs (g)(3) and (4) to read
as follows:
■
§ 52.672
Approval of plans.
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(3) The EPA is vacating its approval
of Idaho’s NOX and SOX BART
determination for the Riley boiler at The
Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC
Nampa facility, published June 22,
2011.
(4) The EPA approves a Regional Haze
SIP revision submitted by the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality
on June 29, 2012, as meeting the
requirements of Clean Air Act section
169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e) regarding
Best Available Retrofit Technology for
The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC,
facility located in Nampa, Idaho. The
EPA is approving a revised NOX BART
determination and revised emission
limit for NOX, a revised emission limit
for PM, and a SO2 BART Alternative for
The Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC,
Nampa facility.
3. Corrects 252.232–7013 to revise the
clause fill-in instructions.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 203,
234, and 252
*
[FR Doc. 2014–09248 Filed 4–25–14; 8:45 am]
Manuel Quinones,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 203, 234, and
252 are amended as follows:
1. The authority citations for 48 CFR
parts 203 and 252 continue to read as
follows:
■
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR
chapter 1.
PART 203—IMPROPER BUSINESS
PRACTICES AND PERSONAL
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
2. Section 203.903 paragraph (1) is
amended by removing ‘‘paragraph (2)’’
and adding ‘‘paragraph (3)’’ in its place.
■
PART 234—MAJOR SYSTEM
ACQUISITION
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
■
3. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 234 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR
chapter 1.
48 CFR Parts 203, 234, and 252
234–004
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Technical
Amendments
4. Section 234–004 paragraphs
(2)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) are amended by
removing ‘‘line times’’ and adding ‘‘line
items’’ in both places.
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
DoD is making technical
amendments to the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to provide needed editorial
changes.
DATES: Effective April 28, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Manuel Quinones, Defense Acquisition
Regulations System,
OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room
3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–3060.
Telephone 571–372–6088; facsimile
571–372–6094.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This final rule amends the DFARS as
follows:
1. Corrects a cross reference in
203.903(1).
2. Corrects a typographical error in
234.004(2)(ii)(A)(1) and (2).
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
[Amended]
■
AGENCY:
PART 252—SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
252.232–7013
[Amended]
5. Section 252.232–7013 is amended
by—
■ a. Removing the clause date ‘‘(MAR
2014)’’ and adding ‘‘(APR 2014)’’ in its
place;
■ b. In paragraph (a) by removing
‘‘Contract Line Items (CLINs) ___, ___,
and ___.’’ and adding ‘‘Contract Line
Item Number(s) (CLIN(s)) [Contracting
Officer insert applicable CLIN(s)].’’ in its
place; and
■ c. In paragraph (b)(i) by removing
‘‘CLINs ___, ___, and ___.’’ and adding
‘‘CLIN(s) [Contracting Officer insert
applicable CLIN(s)].’’ in its place.
■
[FR Doc. 2014–09436 Filed 4–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
[Docket No. 131115971–4345–02]
RIN 0648–XC995
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Northeast Multispecies
Fishery; 2014 Sector Operations Plans
and Contracts and Allocation of
Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch
Entitlements
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We have partially approved
17 sector operations plans and contracts
for fishing year 2014, providing
allocations of Northeast multispecies
(groundfish) to these sectors, and
granting 20 regulatory exemptions.
Approval of sector operations plans is
necessary to allocate quotas to the
sectors and for the sectors to operate.
The Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan allows limited access
permit holders to form sectors, and
requires sectors to submit their
operations plans and contracts to us,
NMFS, for approval or disapproval.
Approved sectors are exempt from
certain effort control regulations and
receive allocations of groundfish based
on their members’ fishing history.
DATES: Effective May 1, 2014, through
April 30, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Copies of each sector’s final
operations plan and contract, and the
environmental assessment (EA), are
available from the NMFS Greater
Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office: John
K. Bullard, Regional Administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 55
Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA
01930. These documents are also
accessible via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brett Alger, Fishery Management
Specialist, phone (978) 675–2153, fax
(978) 281–9135. To review Federal
Register documents referenced in this
rule, you can visit https://
www.nero.noaa.gov/sfd/sfdmultifr.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
[Amended]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
Government procurement.
203.903
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Sfmt 4700
Background
Amendment 13 to the FMP (69 FR
22906, April 27, 2004) established a
process for forming sectors within the
E:\FR\FM\28APR1.SGM
28APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23273-23278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09248]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0581; A-1-FRL-9909-37-Region-10]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Idaho Amalgamated Sugar Company Nampa BART Alternative
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revised Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for The
Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC (TASCO) facility, located in Nampa,
Idaho. On June 22, 2011, the EPA approved Idaho's regional haze state
implementation plan (SIP), including its BART determination for the
TASCO facility, as meeting the visibility protection requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA). On June 29, 2012, the State submitted a
regional haze SIP revision, including a new BART determination for the
TASCO facility that consisted of a stricter emission limit for oxides
of nitrogen (NOX), a stricter emission limit for particulate
matter (PM), and an alternative control measure (BART Alternative) to
replace the previously approved BART determination and emission limit
for sulfur dioxide (SO2). The EPA is fully approving this
SIP revision.
DATES: Effective Dates: This final rule is effective May 28, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0581. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the State
and Tribal Air Programs Unit, Office of Air Waste and Toxics, EPA
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body, EPA Region 10, Suite 900,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
The phone number is (206) 553-0782 and email at body.steve@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act, CAA, or Clean Air Act mean or refer
to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(iv) The words Idaho and State mean the State of Idaho.
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background Information
In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to
protect and improve visibility in the national parks and wilderness
areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress amended the visibility provisions
in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the problem of regional haze.
See CAA section 169B. The EPA promulgated regional haze regulations
(hereafter the ``RHR'') in 1999 to implement sections 169A and 169B of
the CAA. These regulations require states to develop and implement
regional haze SIPs to ensure reasonable progress toward improving
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \1\ (Class
[[Page 23274]]
I areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 6,
2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the Clean Air Act, EPA, in
consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of
156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. 44
FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area
includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions.
42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class
I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the Clean Air Act apply only to ``mandatory
Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR requires each state's regional haze SIP to contain emission
limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART
for each source subject to BART, unless the state demonstrates that an
emissions trading program or other alternative will achieve greater
reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions. A state may
opt to implement or require participation in an emission trading
program or other alternative measure rather than require sources
subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART.
On April 16, 2007, Idaho submitted to the EPA for approval, new and
revised rules that provide the Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality (IDEQ) the regulatory authority to address regional haze and to
implement BART. The EPA approved these rules on June 9, 2011. 76 FR
33651. Idaho submitted to EPA a regional haze SIP to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 on October 25, 2010 (2010 RH SIP). The
2010 RH SIP covered the planning period from 2008 through 2018 and,
among the other required elements, included a BART determination for
the TASCO facility.\2\ On June 22, 2011, the EPA approved the BART-
related provisions of Idaho's 2010 RH SIP, including the final BART
determination for the TASCO facility.\3\ 76 FR 36329. That approval
incorporated by reference the September 7, 2010 TASCO Tier II Operating
Permit No. T2-2009.0105 (2010 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit) that
contained the BART emission limits for the TASCO facility. On November
8, 2012, the EPA took final action to approve the remaining elements in
the 2010 RH SIP. 77 FR 66929. Thus, Idaho's 2010 RH SIP is fully
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ TASCO operates a sugar beet processing facility in Nampa,
Idaho that includes a fossil fuel-fired boiler which is referred to
as the ``Riley boiler.'' The Riley boiler is the only BART-eligible
unit at the TASCO facility, and it is subject to BART.
\3\ Upon EPA's final action in 2011, TASCO filed a petition for
review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging EPA's
approval of Idaho's BART determination for their Nampa facility. See
Amalgamated Sugar v. EPA, No. 11-72445 (9th Cir.) The case is
pending before the Ninth Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 29, 2012, Idaho submitted revisions to the 2010 RH SIP that
address BART for the fossil fuel-fired Riley boiler at the TASCO
facility (2012 RH SIP). The 2012 RH SIP contains: A revised
NOX BART determination with a more stringent NOX
emission limit; a more stringent PM BART emission limit; and a BART
Alternative to replace the federally approved SO2 BART
determination. In addition to the more stringent NOX and PM
emission limits for the Riley boiler, the BART Alternative relies on
control of NOX emissions from two non-BART-eligible boilers
at the TASCO facility. The BART Alternative also takes into account
emission reductions resulting from the permanent shutdown of three
coal-fired pulp-dryers. The revised NOX BART determination
and emission limitation, more stringent PM emission limitation, and the
BART Alternative are contained in a revised Tier II Operating Permit,
T2-2009.0105, issued to TASCO on December 23, 2011 (2011 TASCO Tier II
Operating Permit). Idaho included the permit as part of the 2012 RH
SIP. On June 28, 2013, 78 FR 38872, EPA proposed to approve the revised
NOX BART determination and emission limitation, to approve
the revised PM BART emission limitation, to vacate the previously
approved SO2 BART determination, and to approve the BART
Alternative. Additional details regarding the revisions are explained
in the June 28, 2012 Federal Register notice and in Idaho's 2012 RH
SIP. As explained below, the BART Alternative and revised permit result
in greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions
than the improvement expected from the previously approved BART
determination. Therefore, the EPA is taking final action to approve the
2012 RH SIP as proposed.
II. Response to Comments
We received one comment letter, from the National Park Service, on
the proposed action. The comments can be summarized into three
elements: (1) Whether selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is
technically feasible; (2) whether the incremental cost of SCR was
properly considered; and (3) whether the emission reductions from the
permanent shutdown of three pulp dryers are surplus for purposes of the
BART Alternative.
Comment: The commenter requests that the IDEQ and the EPA
reconsider the original BART determination for the Riley boiler and
evaluate the technical feasibility of selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) or in the alternative, provide additional justification for why
SCR was eliminated from consideration.
The commenter asserts that SCR is technically feasible and
economically reasonable. In regards to the technical feasibility of
SCR, the commenter argues that tail-end SCR (reheating an exhaust gas
stream to proper temperature) has been in use around the world for
decades. The commenter states that neither Idaho nor the EPA made any
showing that tail-end SCR would not be technically feasible at TASCO.
Instead, the EPA relied upon Idaho's analysis, which concluded:
``[I]nstallation after the baghouse would not provide adequate exhaust
temperature for SCR to function properly. . . . Thus, the 2012 RH SIP
submittal finds that LNB is the only technically feasible
NOX control technology for the Riley Boiler.''
The commenter concludes that if the only issue preventing
application of tail-end SCR at TASCO is temperature, then EPA should
investigate the cost of reheating the gas stream--which is typical for
tail-end SCR, turning the issue into one of economic feasibility.
Neither Idaho nor the EPA addressed how the cost of reheating the gas
stream impacts the economic feasibility of SCR.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that SCR is BART for the
Riley boiler. We do not think that it is necessary to evaluate Idaho's
conclusion that the installation of SCR to the Riley boiler is
technically infeasible in order to reach this conclusion. Assuming for
the sake of argument that SCR is technically feasible, Idaho adequately
demonstrated in its 2010 RH SIP that the high incremental cost-
effectiveness and low incremental visibility improvement associated
with SCR, when compared with low NOX burners with overfire
air (LNB/OFA), precluded SCR's selection as BART. Adjusting these
calculations to take into account the stricter NOX emission
limit in Idaho's 2012 RH SIP would increase the incremental cost and
reduce the incremental visibility improvement of SCR even further.
Finally, if Idaho or EPA were to investigate the additional cost of
reheating the gas stream, as the commenter suggests, the only possible
result would be a conclusion that SCR is less economically feasible.
Comment: The commenter questions our reliance on the use of
incremental costs (for determining cost-effective controls), which the
commenter states are subject to manipulation by the
[[Page 23275]]
introduction of invalid control strategies that bias the analysis
against higher-performing control strategies. The commenter states that
in this case, when the LNB/OFA option is eliminated due to technical
infeasibility (as presented in the 2012 SIP), the incremental cost
between SCR and LNB shrinks to $7,327/ton which, in its view, is not a
significant enough incremental difference to justify rejecting SCR.
The commenter also claims that the EPA and Idaho have placed undue
weight on incremental costs and states that because of the exponential
nature of pollution control costs versus removal efficiency,
incremental costs will always exceed average costs. The commenter
further asserts that the EPA has provided no guidance on what an
acceptable incremental cost might be, other than to say in the BART
Guidelines:
The average cost (total annual cost/total annual emission
reductions) for each may be deemed to be reasonable. However, the
incremental cost (total annual cost A-B/total annual emission
reductions A-B) of the additional emission reductions to be achieved
by control B may be very great. In such an instance, it may be
inappropriate to choose control B, based on its high incremental
costs, even though its average cost may be considered reasonable.
(Emphasis added by commenter)
The commenter provides examples from North Dakota and Oregon to
support its claim that in this case, the incremental cost of SCR over
LNB is $7327/ton (as calculated by the commenter), and this incremental
cost, in combination of an average cost-effectiveness of $3768/ton, is
reasonable.
Response: The BART Guidelines suggest that states calculate and
consider incremental cost-effectiveness in combination with average
cost-effectiveness when considering whether to eliminate a control
option. 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, (IV)(D)(4)(e). However, as stated
previously, BART determinations are based on the consideration of five
factors, cost of compliance being only one of the five. The RHR
requires that compliance costs be weighed, among other factors, against
the visibility improvement achieved from each particular control
technology.
Further, it appears that the commenter improperly calculated the
incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR over LNB. The commenter reports a
value of $7327/ton by using the original performance of LNB in the 2010
RH SIP, rather than the revised, more stringent NOX emission
limit in the 2012 RH SIP. The commenter's calculation appears to assume
a 50% control efficiency for LNB with an emission reduction of 521 ton/
yr from the base case of 1042 ton/yr. Using the revised emission limit
of 147 lb/hr, the emission reduction from LNB is 632 ton/yr, and
represents a control efficiency of 60%. When the incremental cost is
calculated based on SCR cost and emission reduction compared to the
original LNB costs and new LNB performance of 147 lb/hr, the
incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR over LNB is $9982/ton.
The Oregon example provided in the comments, which states that,
``Oregon DEQ established a cost/ton threshold of $7300/ton based upon
the premise that improving visibility in multiple Class I areas
warrants a higher cost/ton than where only one Class I area is
affected.'' does not demonstrate Idaho inappropriately considered cost
of compliance. See footnote 1 of the comments. Additionally, as noted
below in the discussion of visibility improvement, use of SCR over the
proposed BART limit of 147 lb/hr would only provide for a 0.03 dv
improvement on the 22nd best day over three years at the Class I area
most impacted by TASCO. The commenter's examples do not demonstrate
that Idaho's decision regarding cost-effectiveness is unreasonable.
Idaho determined that the cost effectiveness of SCR at $3768/ton is
a reasonable cost for the TASCO facility. However, Idaho calculated the
incremental cost of SCR over LNB/OFA at $10,245/ton and determined that
the cost for an additional 15% increase in removal efficiency is
relatively high. See 2010 RH SIP Chapter 10, Section 10.5.1. We also
note that the annualized cost for SCR, as used in Idaho's calculation,
does not take into account the added cost for design, installation and
operation of equipment that would be necessary to re-heat the exhaust
gases after the baghouse. Nor did this calculation account for
increased emissions from the exhaust gas re-heater. Thus, the
incremental cost-effectiveness value of SCR over LNB is likely to be
even greater.
The EPA also considered the incremental cost along with the degree
of expected improvement in visibility from SCR and the visibility
improvement expected from the revised NOX BART
determination. In the 2012 RH SIP, Idaho provided a revised visibility
analysis and compared the visibility improvement expected to result
using the new, more stringent NOX emission limit for LNB to
the visibility improvement expected from SCR. Table 1 below shows the
emission reductions for LNB with the new emission limit and SCR at the
Class I area most impacted by the TASCO facility, the Eagle Cap
Wilderness Area. Table 1 also shows the visibility improvement over
base year conditions for each technology.
Table 1--Comparison of New LNB Emission Limit With SCR Eagle Cap Wilderness Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days above
Control Technology Base Emission Controlled Annualized 98th % 3 years 0.5 dv over
emissions reductions emissions costs 3 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Case..................... 1042 0 1042 0 1.4 dv......... \3\ 97
New LNB BART.................. 1042 \1\ 632 \1\ 410 479,841 0.64 \1\....... \2\ 60
SCR........................... 1042 \4\ 938 \4\ 104 3,534,384 0.61 \4\....... \4\ 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Values from TASCO BART Alternative Statement of Basis, TASCO Best Available Retrofit Technology
Determinations Revised October 31, 2011,Tables 10 and 11.
\2\ From Modeling of new BART determination using 147 lb/hr for LNB (Table 4, `Statement of Basis', 2012 RH SIP)
\3\ Assumes pulp dryers shutdown; from 2010 SIP Submittal, Appendix F, TASCO BART Determination modeling.
\4\ 2010 SIP Submittal, Appendix F, TASCO BART Determination, Table 37, page F-312.
Table 1 shows that the incremental visibility improvement of SCR
over the new LNB BART is 0.03 dv. An incremental cost of $9982/ton as
discussed previously and an incremental improvement of just 0.03 dv at
the most impacted Class I area clearly support SCR's elimination as
BART. These values are both outside the ranges that states and EPA have
found to be reasonable in other actions. The commenter has provided no
information to suggest that either of these values were calculated
incorrectly.
[[Page 23276]]
Comment: The clear implication of EPA's advice in the BART
Guidelines is that incremental costs become a deciding factor only if
they greatly exceed average costs. For TASCO, the incremental cost is
less than double the average cost--this is well below the order of
magnitude presented in the BART Guidelines example, and is relatively
low when compared to other incremental cost analyses. If Idaho and EPA
are to use incremental costs to eliminate a control option, it should
be clear how those incremental costs are excessive when compared to
incremental costs that have been accepted elsewhere. EPA should also
explain what its threshold for an acceptable incremental cost is, and
how it arrived at that threshold.
Response: There is no incremental cost threshold for BART that
applies in every case. As explained above, a BART decision is made
case-by-case, considering all five factors. In the TASCO facility case,
the State calculated the cost-effectiveness of SCR to be $3768/ton, and
we calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR over LNB (with
the new emission limit) to be greater than $9982/ton. We recognize that
standing alone the differential between average and incremental cost-
effectiveness may or may not justify rejecting the technology. However,
because a BART determination is based on consideration of a number of
factors, neither the incremental cost nor the average cost-
effectiveness value alone should determine BART. In this case, the
incremental visibility improvement is important. Considering the Eagle
Cap Wilderness Area, the Class I area most impacted by the Riley
boiler, NOX BART with an emission rate of 147 lbs/hr will
reduce the 98% day impact from 1.4 dv to 0.64 dv, while SCR with an
emission rate of 37 lb/hr would reduce it to 0.61 dv. See Idaho 2010 RH
SIP, Appendix F, TASCO Nampa BART Determination Table 34. While SCR may
result in an increased visibility improvement, the incremental
improvement between LNB and SCR is just 0.03 dv, too small to justify
the more stringent control technology's high incremental cost.
Comment: The commenter says that taken at face value, it looks like
the proposal is for a greater NOX reduction in exchange for
a lesser SO2 reduction from the only BART source, the Riley
boiler. The commenter believes that the ``new information'' presented
by Idaho requires a re-analysis of tail-end SCR.
Response: We do not understand how the above comment applies to the
proposed BART Alternative for the Riley boiler. The SO2 BART
Alternative consists of:
Installing and operating LNB on the non-BART Babcock and
Wilcox (B&W) boilers 1 and 2 with a combined emission
limit of 103 lb/hr; and
Permanently shutting down three pulp dryers.
The BART Alternative does not involve NOX reductions
from the Riley boiler, so the technical feasibility of SCR is not
relevant to the BART Alternative.
Comment: The commenter expressed concern that credit for emission
reductions achieved by the shutdown of the pulp driers may not be
``surplus'' and therefore not allowed under the RHR if these units were
shut-down as a result of another regulatory action under the CAA (i.e.,
compliance with the NAAQS for PM10). The comment notes that
the EPA refers to permitting actions which required shutdown of the
pulp dryers and requests clarification as to why such requirements were
necessary and asks that the EPA confirm that these reductions are truly
surplus in the RHR context.
Response: We have confirmed that the emission reductions that will
result from the BART Alternative are surplus. The RHR requires that
emission reductions resulting from an alternative measure must be
``surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet
requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.'' 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv). When promulgating this requirement in 1999, the EPA
explained that emission reductions must be ``surplus to the Federal
requirements as of the baseline date of the SIP, that is, the date of
the emissions inventories on which the SIP relies.'' See 64 FR 35714,
35742. See also 70 FR 39143 (explaining that ``[W]hatever the origin of
the emission reduction requirement, the relevant question for BART
purposes is whether the alternative program makes greater reasonable
progress.'') The Idaho RH SIP relies on emission inventories from 2002.
See Idaho 2010 SIP, Section 8.1. Thus, reductions resulting from any
measure adopted to meet requirements of the CAA after 2002 are
considered ``surplus'' under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). Therefore, the
emission reductions from the NOX control from B&W boilers
1 & 2 as proposed in the State's permit, along with
the shutdown requirements for the pulp dryers, are indeed surplus.
III. Final Action
The EPA is vacating our previous approval of the State's
NOX and SO2 BART determinations and emission
limits for the TASCO facility and approving Idaho's 2012 RH SIP
submittal that includes a revised BART determination and emission limit
for NOX and a revised PM emission limit, vacates the
previously approved SO2 BART determination, and approves the
BART Alternative for SO2. Specifically we are approving the
2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit, T2-2009-0105, issued by Idaho on
December 23, 2011, conditions 1.2 (including the table of Regulated
Emission Point Sources), permit conditions 3.2, 3.3 (first paragraph
only), 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.11, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, and
4.1. The EPA is approving new BART emission limitations for
NOX and the revised emission limits for PM. The EPA is also
approving the BART Alternative at the TASCO facility because it
provides for greater overall reasonable progress.
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
[[Page 23277]]
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 27, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review 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 section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Visibility, and Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 20, 2014.
Daniel D. Opalski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
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 N--Idaho
0
2. Section 52.670 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (d) by removing the entry for ``The Amalgamated Sugar
Company LLC--Nampa Factory, Nampa, Idaho'' and adding in its place the
following entry for ``The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC--Nampa Factory,
Nampa, Idaho.''
0
b. In paragraph (e) by adding one entry to the end of the table.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.670 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA--Approved Idaho Source-Specific Requirements \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective
Name of source Permit No. date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
The Amalgamated Sugar Company T2-2009.0105 12/23/11 (date 4/28/14 [Insert The following
LLC--Nampa Factory, Nampa, issued). page number where conditions; 1.2,
Idaho. the document including the
begins]. table of
Regulated
Emission Point
Sources Table,
3.2, 3.3 (first
paragraph only),
3.4, 3.5, 3.6,
3.7, 3.8, 3.9,
3.11, 3.13, 3.14,
3.15, 3.16, and
4.1
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA does not have the authority to remove these source-specific requirements in the absence of a
demonstration that their removal would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any
prevention of significant deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment. Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality may request removal by submitting such a demonstration to EPA as a SIP revision.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Idaho Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of SIP provision geographic or State EPA approval date Comments
nonattainment area submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Regional Haze SIP Revision....... State-wide......... 6/29/12 4/28/14 [Insert The portion of the
page number where Regional Haze SIP
the document relating to BART
begins]. for the TASCO,
Nampa facility,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 23278]]
0
3. Section 52.672 is amended by adding paragraphs (g)(3) and (4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.672 Approval of plans.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) The EPA is vacating its approval of Idaho's NOX and
SOX BART determination for the Riley boiler at The
Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC Nampa facility, published June 22, 2011.
(4) The EPA approves a Regional Haze SIP revision submitted by the
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality on June 29, 2012, as meeting
the requirements of Clean Air Act section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e)
regarding Best Available Retrofit Technology for The Amalgamated Sugar
Company LLC, facility located in Nampa, Idaho. The EPA is approving a
revised NOX BART determination and revised emission limit
for NOX, a revised emission limit for PM, and a
SO2 BART Alternative for The Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC,
Nampa facility.
[FR Doc. 2014-09248 Filed 4-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
