38872 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(G) Mechanical hemolysis testing 

must be conducted. 

(H) Chemical tolerance of the catheter 

to repeated exposure to commonly used 

disinfection agents must be established. 

(iii) Performance data must 

demonstrate the sterility of the device. 

(iv) Performance data must support 

the shelf life of the device for continued 

sterility, package integrity, and 

functionality over the requested shelf 

life that must include tensile, repeated 

clamping, and leakage testing. 

(v) Labeling must bear all information 

required for the safe and effective use of 

implanted blood access devices for 

hemodialysis including the following: 

(A) Labeling must provide arterial and 

venous pressure versus flow rates, either 

in tabular or graphical format. 

(B) Labeling must provide the arterial 

and venous priming volumes. 

(C) Labeling must specify the forward 

and reverse recirculation rates. 

(D) Labeling must specify an 

expiration date. 

(E) Labeling must identify any 

disinfecting agents that cannot be used 

to clean any components of the device. 

(F) Any contraindicated disinfecting 

agents due to material incompatibility 

must be identified by printing a warning 

on the catheter. Alternatively a label can 

be provided that can be affixed to the 

patient’s medical record with this 

information. 

(G) The labeling must contain the 

following information: Comprehensive 

instructions for the preparation and 

insertion of the hemodialysis catheter, 

including recommended site of 

insertion, method of insertion, a 

reference on the proper location for tip 

placement, a method for removal of the 

catheter, anticoagulation, guidance for 

management of obstruction and 

thrombus formation, and site care. 

(H) The labeling must identify any 

coatings or additives and summarize the 

results of performance testing for any 

coating or material with special 

characteristics, such as decreased 

thrombus formation or antimicrobial 

properties. 

(vi) For subcutaneous devices, the 

recommended type of needle for access 

must be described, stated in the 

labeling, and test results on repeated use 

of the ports must be provided. 

(vii) Coated devices must include a 

description of the coating or additive 

material, duration of effectiveness, how 

the coating is applied, and testing to 

adequately demonstrate the 

performance of the coating. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 25, 2013. 

Leslie Kux, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15504 Filed 6–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 301 

[REG–160873–04] 

RIN 1545–BF39 

American Jobs Creation Act 

Modifications to Section 6708, Failure 

To Maintain List of Advisees With 

Respect to Reportable Transactions; 

Hearing Cancellation 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public 

hearing on proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document cancels a 

public hearing on proposed regulations 

relating to the penalty under section 

6708 of the Internal Revenue Code for 

failing to make available lists of 

advisees with respect to reportable 

transactions. 

DATES: The public hearing originally 

scheduled for July 2, 2013 at 10 a.m. is 

cancelled. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Oluwafunmilayo Taylor of the 

Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate 

Chief Counsel (Procedure and 

Administration) at (202) 622–7180 (not 

a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice 

of proposed rulemaking and a notice of 

public hearing that appeared in the 

Federal Register on Friday, March 8, 

2013 (78 FR 14939) announced that a 

public hearing was scheduled for July 2, 

2013, at 10 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium, 

Internal Revenue Building, 1111 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC. The subject of the public hearing is 

under section 6708 of the Internal 

Revenue Code. 

The public comment period for these 

regulations expired on June 6, 2013. The 

notice of proposed rulemaking and 

notice of public hearing instructed those 

interested in testifying at the public 

hearing to submit a request to speak and 

an outline of the topics to be addressed 

by June 10, 2013. As of Monday, June 

24, 2013, no one has requested to speak. 

Therefore, the public hearing scheduled 

for July 2, 2013, is cancelled. 

Martin V. Franks, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2013–15471 Filed 6–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2012–0581; A–1–FRL– 

9827–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Idaho 

Amalgamated Sugar Company Nampa 

BART Alternative 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revised BART determination and an 

alternate control measure for The 

Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC. 

(TASCO) plant located in Nampa, 

Canyon County, Idaho, to meet the 

requirements of Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) for regional haze. 

The EPA previously approved the 

State’s BART determination for TASCO 

as meeting the requirements for the 

regional haze provisions in the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) on June 22, 2011. On 

June 29, 2012, the State of Idaho 

submitted revisions to its Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan that included 

a revised BART determination for the 

TASCO facility, a revised emission 

limitation for particulate matter (PM), 

and an alternative control measure for 

TASCO to replace the Federally 

approved sulfur dioxide (SO2) BART 

determination. The EPA proposes to 

vacate the previously approved SO2

BART determination for TASCO, 

approve the revised BART 

determination, the revised emission 

limitation, and the alternative control 

measure at TASCO. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 29, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2012–0581, by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Mail: Steve Body, EPA, Office of 

Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38873 

1Areas 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 

CAA, 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 CAA 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 Id. 

Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

Washington 98101. 

C. Email: body.steve@epa.gov [or R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov] 

D. Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 

Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

Attention: Steve Body, Office of Air 

Waste, and Toxics, AWT–107. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2012– 

0581. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Body, (206) 553–0782, or by email 

at body.steve@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Regional Haze Rule Provisions for BART 

Alternative Measures 

III. Idaho’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revision Submittal 

IV. The EPA’s Evaluation of SIP Revision 

Submittal 

V. The EPA’s Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

I. Background 

In the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Amendments of 1977, Congress 

established a program to protect and 

improve visibility in the Nation’s 

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 (RHR) in 1999 to implement 

sections 169A and 169B of the Act. 

These regulations require states to 

develop and implement plans to ensure 

reasonable progress toward improving 

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas 1 (Class I areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 

1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 

2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 

2006). 

Regional haze is impairment of visual 

range or colorization caused by air 

pollution, principally fine particulate, 

produced by numerous sources and 

activities, located across a broad 

regional area. The sources include but 

are not limited to, major and minor 

stationary sources, mobile sources, and 

area sources including nonanthropogenic sources. These sources 

and activities may emit fine particles 

(PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic 

carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 

and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in 

some cases, ammonia and volatile 

organic compounds). Fine particulate 

can also cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans, and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. See 64 

FR at 35715. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time in most 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

The average visual range in many Class 

I areas in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds the visual range that would 

exist without manmade air pollution.2

Visibility impairment also varies day-today and by season depending on 

variations in meteorology and emission 

rates. The deciview (dv) is the metric by 

which visibility is measured in the 

regional haze program. A change of 1 dv 

is generally considered the change in 

visual range that the human eye can 

perceive. 

The RHR requires each State’s 

regional haze implementation plan 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 (BART 

Authority rule). The EPA approved 

these rules on June 9, 2011. 76 FR 

33651. Idaho submitted its Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan as 

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308 to the EPA on October 25, 2010 

(2010 RH SIP submittal). The 2010 RH 

SIP submittal covers the planning 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38874 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3Upon EPA’s final action, 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. 

4Specifically the IDEQ BART Alternative rule 

provides: ‘‘BART Alternative. As an alternative to 

the installation of BART for a source or sources, the 

Department may approve a BART alternative. If the 

Department approves source grouping as a BART 

alternative, only sources (including BART-eligible 

and non-BART eligible sources) causing or 

contributing to visibility impairment to the same 

mandatory Class I Federal Area may be grouped 

together: a. If a source(s) proposes a BART 

alternative, the resultant emissions reduction and 

visibility impacts must be compared with those that 

would result from the BART options evaluated for 

the source(s). b. Source(s) proposing a BART 

alternative must demonstrate that this BART 

alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress 

than would be achieved through the installation 

and operation of BART. c. Source(s) proposing a 

BART alternative shall include in the BART 

analysis an analysis and justification of the 

averaging period and method of evaluating 

compliance with the proposed emission limitation. 

IDAPA 58.01.01.668.06.’’ 

period of 2008 through 2018 and, among 

the other required elements, includes a 

BART determination for the TASCO 

facility in Nampa, Idaho. On June 22, 

2011, the EPA approved the BART 

related provisions of Idaho’s 2010 RH 

SIP submittal, 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 

emission limitations representing BART 

for TASCO. On November 8, 2012, EPA 

took final action to approve the 

remaining elements in the Idaho 

Regional Haze SIP. 77 FR 66929. Thus, 

Idaho’s 2010 RH SIP is fully approved. 

On June 29, 2012, Idaho submitted 

revisions (2012 RH SIP submittal) to the 

2010 RH SIP that includes: a revised 

NOX BART determination; a more 

stringent particulate matter (PM) 

emission limitation; and an alternative 

control measure to replace the SO2

BART determination for TASCO’s fossil 

fuel-fired Riley Boiler. This alternative 

control measure is also referred to as the 

BART Alternative. In addition to the 

new NOX and PM emission limitations 

on the Riley Boiler, the alternative 

control measure relies on control of 

NOX emissions from two other boilers at 

the TASCO facility in Nampa, that are 

not BART eligible emission units (nonBART boilers). The alternative measure 

also takes into account emission 

reductions resulting from the permanent 

shutdown of three coal fired pulpdryers. The revised NOX BART 

determination, more stringent PM 

emission limitation, and the BART 

Alternative are contained in a revised 

Tier II Operating Permit, T2–2009.0105 

issued to TASCO December 23, 2011 

(2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit). 

As explained below this alternative 

measure and revised permit result in 

greater reasonable progress toward 

natural visibility conditions than the 

improvement expected from the BART 

determination previously approved. 

II. Regional Haze Rule Provisions for 

BART Alternative Measures 

The RHR contains provisions whereby 

a state may choose to implement an 

alternative measure as an alternative to 

BART, if the state can demonstrate that 

the alternative measure achieves greater 

reasonable progress toward achieving 

natural visibility conditions than would 

be achieved through the installation, 

operation and maintenance of BART. 

The requirements for alternative 

measures are established at 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2). As explained in the RHR, 

the state must demonstrate that all 

necessary emission reductions will take 

place during the first long term strategy 

period (i.e., by 2018) and that the 

emissions reductions resulting from the 

alternative measure will be surplus to 

those reductions resulting from 

measures adopted to meet requirements 

of the CAA as of the baseline date of the 

SIP. 

The Idaho rules provide IDEQ 

authority to consider and adopt 

alternative measures as an alternative to 

BART. See IDAPA 58.01.01.668.06.4

The EPA approved this BART 

Alternative rule when it approved the 

Idaho BART Authority rule. 76 FR 

33652 (June 9, 2011). 

Sources subject to BART must be in 

compliance with the BART emission 

limitations as soon as practical but no 

later than 5 years after EPA approves the 

implementation plan revision. 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv). The EPA approval of 

Idaho’s BART provisions became 

effective July 22, 2011, thus TASCO 

must be in compliance with the BART 

requirements no later than July 22, 

2016. Under the BART Alternative, as 

specified in the revised permit, TASCO 

must comply with the emission 

limitations by July 22, 2016, which is 

well within the first long term strategy 

period which ends December, 2018. 

III. Idaho’s SIP Revision Submittal 

TASCO operates a sugar beet 

processing facility in Nampa, Idaho, that 

includes a fossil fuel fired boiler 

referred to as the ‘‘Riley Boiler’’. The 

Riley Boiler is a BART eligible source 

and is subject to BART. In the final 

action on the BART provisions in the 

2010 RH SIP submittal, the EPA 

approved IDEQ’s BART determination 

for the Riley Boiler. 76 FR 36329. The 

approved BART level technology and 

emission limitations identified for the 

Riley Boiler and contained in the 2010 

TASCO Tier II Operating Permit are: 

PM: 14 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) and 

requires the emissions to be controlled 

using a baghouse; 

SO2: 115 lbs/hr and requires the 

emissions to be controlled with spraydry flue gas desulfurization (spray-dry 

FGD); and 

NOx: 186 lbs/hr and requires the NOX

emissions to be controlled using low 

NOX burners with overfire air (LNB– 

OFA). 

Subsequent to the 2010 RH SIP 

submission and approval, TASCO 

submitted to IDEQ additional sitespecific engineering analyses and a 

proposal for an alternative measure to 

replace the SO2 BART determination for 

its facility. Dispersion modeling was 

conducted to compare the visibility 

improvement expected from the 

alternative control measure to visibility 

improvement expected from 

implementation of BART. Based on the 

new information and proposal, IDEQ 

revised portions of Chapter 10 of the 

2010 RH SIP and submitted the 

revisions, along with supporting 

technical documentation, to the EPA. 

The 2012 RH SIP submittal contains, 

among other elements, a new NOX

BART determination for the Riley Boiler 

and the 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating 

Permit for the Riley Boiler. 

The 2012 RH SIP submittal revises the 

NOX BART determination for the Riley 

Boiler. The 2010 RH SIP submittal 

identified low NOX burners (LNB), LNB 

with overfire air (OFA), and selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) as all 

technically feasible NOX controls for the 

Riley Boiler. The State evaluated the 

cost effectiveness of each technology 

and determined that: LNB is cost 

effective at $921/ton; LNB–OFA is cost 

effective at $1270/ton with an 

incremental cost over LNB at $2431/ton. 

At that time, the State determined that 

SCR had a cost effectiveness value of 

$3768/ton and an incremental cost over 

LNB–OFA of $10,245/ton. In the 2010 

RH SIP submittal, Idaho determined that 

SCR is not cost effective based on the 

incremental cost of SCR over the cost of 

LNB–OFA. In the final action on Idaho’s 

2010 RH SIP submittal, the EPA 

approved the State’s BART 

determination. As explained, based on 

additional on-site engineering analysis 

conducted by TASCO, Idaho 

subsequently determined that neither 

LNB–OFA nor SCR are technically 

feasible at this facility. See 2012 RH SIP 

submittal, Chapter 10, Section 10.5. In 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38875 

the detailed engineering analysis 

conducted for installation of LNB–OFA, 

TASCO determined that there is 

insufficient space in the combustion 

chamber for LNB–OFA for adequate 

combustion and flame management. As 

also explained, TASCO and the State 

now consider SCR to be technically 

infeasible due to inadequate space 

between the boiler and baghouse and 

concerns about catalyst fouling and 

erosion. The analysis also determined 

that installation after the baghouse 

would not provide adequate exhaust 

temperature for SCR to function 

properly. Id. Thus, the 2012 RH SIP 

submittal finds that LNB is the only 

technically feasible NOX control 

technology for the Riley Boiler. 

Regardless of the revised 

determination of what NOx control is 

technically feasible for the Riley Boiler, 

new, more stringent, BART emission 

limitations for NOx were included in 

the State’s revised BART determination 

and the new, more stringent, NOx and 

PM emission limitations are included in 

the revised 2011Tier II Operating 

Permit. See 2012 RH SIP submittal 

Chapter 10, Section 10.5 Table 3, and 

2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit 

Condition 3.4. The revised NOx BART 

determination is based on LNBs for NOx 

control. The revised NOx BART 

determination for the Riley Boiler 

strengthens the emission limitations 

from 186 lbs/hr to 147 lbs/hr, and 

results in a 21% reduction in NOx 

emissions from the original BART 

determination for the Riley Boiler. It 

also changes the identified control 

technology for NOx upon which the 

BART emission limitation is based, from 

LNB–OFA to LNBs. As explained below, 

this new BART determination and more 

stringent emission limitations were used 

in the demonstration that the BART 

Alternative provides for greater 

reasonable progress to achieve natural 

visibility conditions than BART. 

The 2012 RH SIP submittal also 

proposes as a BART Alternative an 

alternative measure to the SO2 BART 

determination for the Riley Boiler. This 

alternative measure covers six emission 

units at the TASCO facility: the Riley 

Boiler, the Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) 

Boilers #1 and #2, and the South, 

Center, and North Pulp dryers. The 

alternative measure replaces the spraydry FGD SO2 control on the Riley Boiler 

with LNB NOx control on the B&W 

Boilers #1 & #2 and takes into account 

the emission reductions resulting from 

the shutdown of the three pulp dryers. 

Thus, the retrofit of the coal-fired lowNOx burners on the B&W Boilers and 

resulting NOx reductions and credit for 

the permanent shutdown of the three 

pulp dryers are intended to replace the 

BART SO2 emission limitation for the 

Riley Boiler. The controls for the B&W 

Boilers #1 & #2 and shutdown 

requirements for the South Pulp Dryer 

in the 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating 

Permit, (Condition 4.1) will become 

Federally enforceable upon final 

approval of this proposal. The 

permanent shutdown of the Center and 

North pulp dryers is Federally 

enforceable, as required by the 

September 30, 2002, TASCO Tier II 

permit currently in the Federally 

approved SIP. The 2011 TASCO Tier II 

Operating Permit also includes a revised 

PM limitation for the Riley Boiler, 

reducing the PM emission limitation 

from 14 lbs/hr to 12.4 lbs/hr. The 

strengthened PM emission limitation 

results in an 11% reduction in PM 

emissions from the emissions expected 

from the BART determination 

previously approved. 

TASCO conducted air quality 

dispersion modeling to estimate 

visibility improvement in affected Class 

I areas in accordance with the threestate, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon 

BART Modeling Protocol to demonstrate 

greater reasonable progress in achieving 

natural visibility conditions. This 

protocol underwent extensive review 

and approval and formed the basis for 

much of the BART modeling for 

regional haze conducted in the Pacific 

Northwest, including modeling in 

Idaho’s 2010 RH SIP submittal. In the 

2012 RH SIP submittal, the State 

demonstrated the visibility improving 

advantages of the BART Alternative by 

comparing the visibility improvement of 

the revised BART for the Riley Boiler in 

the 2012 RH SIP submittal with the 

improvement resulting from the BART 

Alternative. The model input emissions 

for SO2, NOx and PM were determined 

for all six emission units included in the 

alternative measure: the Riley Boiler 

(SO2, NOx, and PM), B&W Boilers #1 

and #2 (NOx), and the three coal-fired 

pulp dryers (SO2, NOx and PM). Three 

scenarios were modeled for all six 

emission units: baseline (pre-BART), 

revised BART for Riley Boiler, and the 

BART Alternative. 

Emissions from the TASCO facility 

impairs visibility at seven mandatory 

Class I areas within 300 kilometers (km): 

Eagle Cap Wilderness Area, Oregon; 

Craters of the Moon National 

Monument, Idaho; Hells Canyon 

Wilderness Area, Oregon; Jarbidge 

Wilderness Area, Nevada; Sawtooth 

Wilderness Area, Idaho; SelwayBitteroot Wilderness Area, Idaho; and 

the Strawberry Wilderness Area, 

Oregon. The results of this modeling 

effort for all seven Class I areas are 

presented in the 2012 RH SIP submittal, 

Chapter 10, Section 10.5, Table 6. The 

deciview impact for the 22nd highest 

day over the 2003 to 2005 time period 

is presented for each of the seven Class 

I areas. The submittal shows the number 

of days with impairment greater than 

0.5 dv in the 2003 to 2005 time period. 

The Table below presents the 

modeled visibility, at all Class I areas 

within 300 km of the TASCO facility at 

baseline conditions (2003 to 2005), 

under the revised BART, and under the 

proposed BART Alternative. As shown, 

the proposed BART Alternative 

achieves greater reasonable progress 

toward natural conditions than would 

be achieved through the installation, 

operation and maintenance of BART. 

TABLE 1—MODELED VISIBILITY CONDITIONS

Class I area 

Baseline 

visibility impact 

(dv) a d

Visibility 

impact under 

proposed 

revised BART 

(dv) b d

Visibility 

impact under 

proposed 

BART 

alternative 

(dv) c d

Additional 

visibility 

improvement 

with BART 

alternative vs 

revised BART 

(dv) d

Days above 

0.5 dv 

baseline e

Days above 

0.5 dv under 

revised 

BART e

Days above 

0.5 dv under 

BART 

alternative e

Decrease in 

days >0.5 dv 

from BART 

alternative vs 

revised BART e

Eagle Cap Wilderness, 

OR ........................... 2 .201 1.512 1.411 0.101 195 149 126 23 

Craters of the Moon 

Wilderness, ID ......... 0 .393 0.267 0.245 0.022 10 4 3 1 

Hells Canyon Wilderness, ID/OR ............. 1 .582 1.092 1.059 0.033 129 87 80 7 

Jarbidge Wilderness, 

NV ............................ 0 .375 0.256 0.234 0.022 8 5 5 0 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38876 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5Current statewide regulations limit the sulfur 

content of coal to 1% by weight. IDAPA 

58.01.01.725.04. This limit would not be affected by 

the action proposed today and the limit remains 

applicable to the TASCO facility. 

TABLE 1—MODELED VISIBILITY CONDITIONS—Continued 

Class I area 

Baseline 

visibility impact 

(dv) a d

Visibility 

impact under 

proposed 

revised BART 

(dv) b d

Visibility 

impact under 

proposed 

BART 

alternative 

(dv) c d

Additional 

visibility 

improvement 

with BART 

alternative vs 

revised BART 

(dv) d

Days above 

0.5 dv 

baseline e

Days above 

0.5 dv under 

revised 

BART e

Days above 

0.5 dv under 

BART 

alternative e

Decrease in 

days >0.5 dv 

from BART 

alternative vs 

revised BART e

Sawtooth Wilderness, 

ID ............................. 0 .47 0.319 0.307 0.012 18 6 6 0 

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, ID .............. 0 .439 0.281 0.298 (0.017 ) 15 3 4 (1 ) 

Strawberry Mountain 

Wilderness, OR ....... 1 .462 1.076 0.917 0.159 80 62 51 11 

a Includes pre-BART emissions of all sources involved in BART and the BART Alternative: Riley Boiler, B&W Boilers 1&2 and three pulp dryers. 

b Includes all sources involved in BART and the BART Alternative under BART operations: Riley Boiler (LNB + SD–FGD), B&W Boilers 1&2, three pulp dryers operating. c Includes all sources involved in BART and the BART Alternative under BART Alternative operations: Riley Boiler (LNB), B&W Boilers 1&2 (LNB), three pulp dryers 

shut down. dThe 22nd highest dv value for the three-year period (2003–2005). 

eTotal number of days in the three-year period that exceed 0.5 dv. 

IV. The EPA’s Evaluation of the SIP 

Revision Submittal 

1. Revised BART Determination for the 

Riley Boiler 

The provisions of 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix Y, followed by Idaho, set 

forth the process used to identify 

control technologies and to consider the 

five statutory factors that must be 

evaluated as part of a BART 

determination. After site specific 

consideration of the factors, the best 

achievable retrofit technology is 

identified and the BART emission 

limitation is specified. 

As discussed previously in this 

notice, based on a revised analysis 

conducted and provided by TASCO, 

Idaho determined that SCR is 

technically infeasible for the Riley 

Boiler. This new finding does not affect 

the State’s final BART determination 

because, as the EPA previously agreed, 

Idaho’s determination found that even if 

SCR was technically feasible it was not 

cost effective and thus, would not 

qualify as BART. 76 FR 3632. Thus, the 

2012 RH SIP submittal determination 

that SCR is technically infeasible does 

not change the EPA’s previous 

agreement that SCR is not BART for this 

facility. The EPA previously approved 

the NOX BART emission limitation for 

the Riley Boiler of 186 lbs/hr, based on 

LNB–OFA control technology. However, 

TASCO’s further engineering analysis 

determined that while there is 

insufficient space in the combustion 

chamber for LNB–OFA for adequate 

combustion and flame management, 

LNB alone could achieve greater NOX

control than the LNB–OFA control. 

Accordingly, Idaho revised its NOX

BART determination to reflect the 

technology change, greater control and 

tighter emission limitations. The 

compliance date of July 22, 2016 

remains unchanged. 

In the 2012 RH SIP submittal, Idaho 

strengthened the NOX BART emission 

limitation to 147 lbs/hr based on 

TASCO’s reassessment of LNB 

performance for the Riley Boiler. In light 

of TASCO’s revised analysis that the 

original BART determination is not 

technically feasible and because the 

revised BART determination results in a 

more stringent NOX BART emission 

limitation, the EPA is proposing to 

vacate our original BART determination 

and approve the revised NOX BART 

determination and this new limitation 

for the TASCO facility. 

The EPA previously approved Idaho’s 

PM BART emission limitation for the 

Riley Boiler of 14 lbs/hr, based on 

baghouse control technology as 

provided in the 2010 RH SIP submittal. 

In the 2012 RH SIP submittal, Idaho 

strengthened the PM emission 

limitation to 12.4 lbs/hr, based on 

TASCO’s analysis of the performance of 

the baghouse. The revised PM emission 

limitation is more stringent than the 

limitation previously approved and 

therefore the EPA is proposing to 

approve this revised PM limitation as a 

SIP strengthening measure. 

2. Alternative to BART for the TASCO 

facility 

The 2012 RH SIP submittal includes 

a proposed alternative measure to the 

previously approved SO2 BART 

determination for Riley Boiler. This 

alternative measure is intended to 

replace the SO2 BART emission 

limitation of 115 lb/hr for the Riley 

Boiler 5 with a combined NOX emission 

limitation on the B&W Boilers #1 and #2 

of 103 lbs/hr, and takes into account the 

emission reductions resulting from the 

permanent shutdown of three coal-fired 

pulp dryers. The baseline emissions for 

all three pulp dryers are: NOX—191.2 

lbs/hr; SO2—17.9 lbs/hr; and PM–927 

lbs/hr. These emissions were 

permanently eliminated when the pulp 

dryers were shutdown. 

Installation of LNB control and 

establishing emission limitations on the 

B&W Boilers, along with permanently 

eliminating the emissions associated 

with the three pulp dryers, result in a 

total reduction in NOX of 221 t/y, SO2

of 20.6 t/y, and PM of 113 t/y. The B&W 

Boilers are non-BART units. The pulp 

dryers were shutdown because 

installation of a drying process using 

waste steam from the boilers instead of 

the pulp dryers reduced the fuel 

demand that resulted in a lower cost 

operation, eliminating the need for the 

pulp dryers. The shutdown of the pulp 

dryers is not required under the CAA. 

Thus, these emission reductions may be 

considered surplus. The total emissions 

are reduced under the BART Alternative 

measure compared to both the original 

2010 RH SIP approved BART 

determination and the revised BART 

determination in the 2012 RH SIP 

submittal. 

As presented in Table 1 above, 

dispersion modeling of visibility in all 

Class I areas within 300 km of the 

TASCO facility demonstrates there is 

overall greater progress towards 

achieving natural conditions under the 

BART Alternative. In particular, there is 

greater progress in the Eagle Cap 

Wilderness Area (the Class I area most 

impacted by emissions from the TASCO 

facility) of 0.101 dv under the BART 

alternative than under the revised BART 

determination and in the Strawberry 

Mountain Wilderness Area of 0.159 dv. 

The 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating 

Permit, Permit Condition 3.3 requires 

compliance with the BART Alternative 

by July 22, 2016, the same compliance 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 125 / Friday, June 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38877 

date as the approved BART. 

Additionally, the permit provides that 

unless LNBs have been installed and 

operating, as required in Permit 

Condition 3.7, on and after July 22, 

2016, the Riley Boiler may be fired only 

using natural gas, and that on, and after 

July 22, 2016, the Riley Boiler may not 

be fired with coal until such date that 

the coal-fired LNBs are installed and 

operated in accordance with the permit. 

See 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating 

Permit, Permit Condition 3.9. Permit 

condition 14.9 of TASCO’s Tier I 

Operating Permit T1–050020, issued 

May 23, 2006, required the North and 

Central pulp dryers to be permanently 

shut down and Permit Condition 4.1 of 

the 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating 

Permit, requires the South Pulp Dryer to 

be permanently shutdown. Thus, there 

is no delay in compliance with BART 

requirements under the BART 

Alternative. 

The 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating 

Permit contains the emission limitations 

discussed above. See 2011 TASCO Tier 

II Operating Permit, Permit Condition 

3.4 and 3.5. The permit also contains 

requirements for a non-visibility 

impairing pollutant, specifically carbon 

monoxide (CO). Permit Condition 3.12 

requires performance testing for CO. 

The EPA proposes no action on this 

permit condition, as it does not pertain 

to visibility. 

The second paragraph of Condition 

3.3 of the Permit allows TASCO to 

submit a request to obtain IDEQ 

approved alternatives to BART and to 

revise the Permit and explains that 

IDEQ will process the request in 

accordance with its permitting rules. 

The condition further provides that the 

request must be submitted in time for 

any such revision to the permit and the 

corresponding revision to the RH SIP to 

be approved prior to July 22, 2016. This 

provision is administrative in nature 

and addresses the State’s procedure for 

possible future revisions to the permit. 

As such it is not necessary or 

appropriate for EPA to act on this 

provision. Nevertheless, we note that a 

revision to a Federally approved permit 

must meet applicable Federal 

requirements before it could be 

incorporated into the Federally 

approved SIP. The EPA cannot assure 

Idaho or TASCO that any submitted 

BART Alternative measure will be 

approved until that measure has been 

thoroughly evaluated by the EPA as 

meeting Federal requirements. 

V. The EPA’s Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to vacate our 

previous BART determination for the 

TASCO facility and to approve Idaho’s 

2012 RH SIP submittal including the 

revised NOX BART determination for 

the TASCO Riley Boiler and the 2011 

TASCO Tier II Operating Permit 

containing the BART Alternative 

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. Specifically, the EPA 

proposes to approve new BART 

emission limitations for NOX, the 

revised PM emission limitations and the 

BART Alternative at the TASCO facility 

because they provide greater overall 

reasonable progress toward achieving 

natural conditions in affected Class I 

areas than the previously approved 

BART determination for the TASCO 

facility. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

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 proposed 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 proposed 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); 

• 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 rule 

neither imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

nor preempts tribal law. Therefore, the 

requirements of section 5(b) and 5(c) of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

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, and 

Visibility. 

Dated: June 14, 2013. 

R. David Allnutt, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15442 Filed 6–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640] FRL–9829–3 

RIN 2060–AR64 

Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing that 

the period for providing public 

comments on the May 23, 2013, 

proposed rule titled, ‘‘Kraft Pulp Mills 

NSPS Review’’ is being extended by 15 

days. 

DATES: Comments. The public comment 

period for the proposed rule published 

May 23, 2013 (78 FR 31315), is being 

extended by 15 days to July 23, 2013, in 

order to provide the public additional 

time to submit comments and 

supporting information. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS