Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 23273 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

Continued 

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). 

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. 

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 http:// 

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 

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., http:// 

www.mintel.com, accessed January 29, 2014. 

Dated: April 22, 2014. 

Leslie Kux, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[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 

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
23274 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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.’’ 

2TASCO 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. 

3Upon 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. 

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) 

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. 

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 23275 

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 costeffectiveness 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 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

Control Technology Base 

emissions 

Emission 

reductions 

Controlled 

emissions 

Annualized 

costs 

98th % 

3 years 

Days above 

0.5 dv over 

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 

1Values from TASCO BART Alternative Statement of Basis, TASCO Best Available Retrofit Technology Determinations Revised October 31, 

2011,Tables 10 and 11. 2From Modeling of new BART determination using 147 lb/hr for LNB (Table 4, ‘Statement of Basis’, 2012 RH SIP) 

3Assumes 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. 


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 

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); 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 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] 

■ 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. State effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

The Amalgamated Sugar 

Company LLC—Nampa 

Factory, Nampa, Idaho.

T2–2009.0105 12/23/11 (date issued) ......... 4/28/14 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

The following conditions; 1.2, 

including the 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 

* * * * * * * 

1EPA 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

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Regional Haze SIP Revision .. State-wide .............................. 6/29/12 4/28/14 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

The portion of the Regional 

Haze SIP relating to BART 

for the TASCO, Nampa facility, 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 

[FR Doc. 2014–09248 Filed 4–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 203, 234, and 252 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Technical 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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). 

3. Corrects 252.232–7013 to revise the 

clause fill-in instructions. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 203, 

234, and 252 

Government procurement. 

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 

203.903 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 203.903 paragraph (1) is 

amended by removing ‘‘paragraph (2)’’ 

and adding ‘‘paragraph (3)’’ in its place. 

PART 234—MAJOR SYSTEM 

ACQUISITION 

■ 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. 

234–004 [Amended] 

■ 4. Section 234–004 paragraphs 

(2)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) are amended by 

removing ‘‘line times’’ and adding ‘‘line 

items’’ in both places. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[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 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: 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: http://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 http://

www.nero.noaa.gov/sfd/sfdmultifr.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Amendment 13 to the FMP (69 FR 

22906, April 27, 2004) established a 

process for forming sectors within the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES