[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23273-23278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09248]



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 [email protected].



    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 

    \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 

    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 
    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 
    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 

[[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. 
    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:


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:

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
                                                                                               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
                                                  * * * * * * *
\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
      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]]

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]