
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31240-31262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12777]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0935, FRL-9677-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Florida; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of two revisions to the 
Florida state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of 
Florida through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
(FDEP) on March 19, 2010, and August 31, 2010. Additionally, EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of a draft SIP revision submitted by FDEP 
on April 13, 2012, for parallel processing. Collectively, these three 
SIP revisions address regional haze for the first implementation 
period. Specifically, these SIP revisions address the requirements of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), and EPA's rules that require states to 
prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I areas (national parks and wilderness 
areas) caused by emissions of air pollutants

[[Page 31241]]

from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also 
referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to 
assure reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving 
natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is proposing a 
limited approval of these SIP revisions to implement the regional haze 
requirements for Florida on the basis that these revisions, as a whole, 
strengthen the Florida SIP. Previously, EPA proposed a limited 
disapproval of the Florida regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in 
Florida's regional haze SIP arising from the remand by the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to EPA 
of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). Consequently, EPA is not 
proposing to take action in this rulemaking to address the State's 
reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See footnote 4 for further information.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0935, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: 404-562-9019.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0935, Regulatory Development Section, Air 
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. 
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0935.'' 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 through 
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means 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 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, 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 EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 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. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    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 at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning 
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson or Michele Notarianni, 
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides 
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Sara 
Waterson can be reached at telephone number (404) 562-9061 and by 
electronic mail at waterson.sara@epa.gov. Michele Notarianni can be 
reached at telephone number (404) 562-9031 and by electronic mail at 
notarianni.michele@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is parallel processing?
III. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
IV. What are the requirements for the Regional Haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the RHR
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
V. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's Regional Haze SIP revisions?
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility 
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, 
Source Categories, and Geographic Areas
    4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable 
Progress Controls in Florida and Surrounding Areas
    5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable 
Progress Analysis
    6. BART
    7. RPGs
    D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    F. Consultation With States and FLMs
    1. Consultation With Other States
    2. Consultation With the FLMs
    G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
VI. What action is EPA taking?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 31242]]

    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of two Florida SIP revisions 
submitted by FDEP on March 19, 2010, and August 31, 2010. Today, EPA is 
also proposing a limited approval of a draft SIP revision submitted by 
FDEP on April 13, 2012, for parallel processing. See section II of this 
proposed rulemaking for more detail on parallel processing. These three 
SIP revisions address regional haze requirements for Florida under CAA 
sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3). EPA is proposing a limited approval of 
these SIP revisions because the revisions, as a whole, strengthen the 
Florida SIP. Throughout this document, references to Florida's (or 
FDEP's or the State's) ``regional haze SIP'' refer to Florida's 
original March 19, 2010, regional haze SIP revision, as later 
supplemented in a SIP revision submitted August 31, 2010, and in a 
draft SIP revision dated April 13, 2012.\2\ This proposed rulemaking 
explains the basis for EPA's proposed limited approval action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The April 13, 2012, draft SIP revision evaluates BART and 
reasonable progress provisions for several of Florida's EGUs.
    \3\ Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the 
entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and 
prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA 
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate action, EPA has previously proposed a limited 
disapproval of the Florida regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in 
the State's regional haze SIP arising from the State's reliance on CAIR 
to meet certain regional haze requirements. See 76 FR 82219 (December 
30, 2011). EPA is not proposing to take action in today's rulemaking on 
issues associated with Florida's reliance on CAIR in its regional haze 
SIP.\4\ EPA will address this in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Florida's SIP revisions rely on CAIR to address BART 
requirements related to both nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur 
dioxide (SO2). However, EPA's replacement rule for CAIR 
(i.e., the ``Transport Rule,'' also known as the Cross-State Air 
Pollution Rule) includes Florida only in the trading program to 
cover NOx. States such as Florida that are subject to the 
requirements of the Transport Rule trading program only for NOx must 
still address BART for SO2 and other visibility impairing 
pollutants. On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed a limited disapproval 
of the Florida regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the 
State's regional haze SIP arising from the State's reliance on CAIR 
to meet certain regional haze requirements. In that action, EPA also 
proposed to issue a federal implementation plan (FIP) to address the 
deficiencies in Florida's SIP associated with the BART requirements 
for NOx for electrical generating units (EGUs) based on EPA's 
proposed revisions to the RHR allowing states to substitute 
participation in the trading programs under the Transport Rule for 
source-specific BART. However, EPA did not propose a plan to address 
the deficiencies associated with the BART requirements for 
SO2 since the Transport Rule does not cover 
SO2 emissions from Florida EGUs. Because Florida also 
relied on CAIR in assessing the need for emissions reductions for 
SO2 from EGUs to satisfy BART requirements, the State is 
currently re-evaluating EGUs with respect to SO2 BART 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is parallel processing?

    Parallel processing refers to a concurrent state and federal 
proposed rulemaking action. Generally under this process, the state 
submits a copy of the proposed SIP revisions to EPA before conducting 
its public hearing. See, e.g., 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. EPA reviews 
this proposed state action and prepares a notice of proposed 
rulemaking. EPA publishes this notice of proposed rulemaking in the 
Federal Register and solicits public comment during approximately the 
same time frame during which the state is holding its public hearing. 
The state and EPA thus provide for public comment periods on both the 
state and the federal actions in parallel.
    As mentioned above, on April 13, 2012, Florida submitted a draft 
regional haze SIP revision along with a request for parallel 
processing. Florida provided the SIP revision for public comment on 
April 13, 2012, but the State has not yet finalized the SIP revision. 
Through today's proposed rulemaking, EPA is proposing parallel limited 
approval for this draft SIP revision.
    Once the April 13, 2012, revision is state-effective, Florida will 
need to provide EPA with a formal SIP revision request to incorporate 
the revision into the Florida SIP. After Florida submits the formal SIP 
revision request (including a response to any public comments raised 
during the State's public participation process), EPA will evaluate any 
changes to the SIP revision from what is proposed in today's action. If 
any such changes are found by EPA to be significant, the Agency intends 
to re-propose the action based upon the revised submission. If the 
changes render the SIP revision not approvable, EPA would re-propose 
the action as a disapproval of the revision. If there are no 
significant changes, EPA will prepare a final rulemaking notice for the 
SIP revision.
    The FDEP-requested parallel processing allows EPA to begin to take 
action on the State's draft SIP revision in advance of the submission 
of the formal SIP revision. As stated above, the final rulemaking 
action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been: (1) 
Adopted by Florida, (2) evaluated for changes, and (3) submitted 
formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.

III. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., 
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 
and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some 
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). 
Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine 
particulate matter which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing 
light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible 
distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious 
health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental 
effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    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 at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \5\ in many Class I areas 
\6\ (i.e., national parks and

[[Page 31243]]

memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting 
certain size criteria) in the western United States is 100-150 
kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that 
would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern 
Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less 
than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would 
exist under estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
    \6\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas consist of 
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national 
memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 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. See 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 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 area is the responsibility 
of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term 
``Class I area'' is used in this action, it means a ``mandatory 
Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment 
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA 
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first 
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on 
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between 
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 
1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility 
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing 
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility 
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional 
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's 
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the 
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in 
section IV of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze 
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin 
Islands.\7\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first 
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no 
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit 
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico 
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and 
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air 
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate 
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged 
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and 
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to 
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas 
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional 
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other 
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the 
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, 
tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to 
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of 
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the 
southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments 
include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the 
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

IV. What are the requirements for Regional Haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail 
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit 
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform 
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire 
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy 
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using 
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then 
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. 
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in 
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview 
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the 
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
deciview.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim 
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), 
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking 
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures 
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of 
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused 
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that 
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural 
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no 
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.

[[Page 31244]]

    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as 
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically 
review progress every five years, i.e., midway through each 10-year 
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine 
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired 
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of 
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate 
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress 
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by 
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause 
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based 
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how 
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in 
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003 (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance'') and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 
Rule, September 2003 (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter referred to as 
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each 
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility 
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values 
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline 
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the 
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the 
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions 
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000--2004 
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in 
visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, 
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I 
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR 
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead 
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable 
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility 
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in 
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year 
period of the SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least 
impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program 
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from 
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') 
and the emissions reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of 
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards 
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of 
progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state 
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult 
with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states 
with emissions sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at 
the Class I state's areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \9\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emissions limits for 
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil 
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity 
in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set 
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, 
to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other 
types of sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and 
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether

[[Page 31245]]

VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emissions 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional 
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements 
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements 
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART 
controls on the source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration 
for CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide 
that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 
CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain 
subject to the CAIR FIP in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected 
BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions 
of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because 
CAIR did not address direct emissions of PM, states were still required 
to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART 
for that pollutant. Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted in the remand 
of the rule to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 
2008).
    EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport 
of NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States. See 
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the Transport Rule,'' also known as the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to 
find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve 
greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART 
in the states in which the Transport Rule applies. See 76 FR 82219. 
Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to 
allow states to substitute participation in the trading programs under 
the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has not yet taken 
final action on that rule. Also on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit 
issued an order addressing the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in 
response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the 
Transport Rule pending judicial review. In that order, the D.C. Circuit 
stayed the Transport Rule pending the court's resolutions of the 
petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA 
(No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA 
is expected to continue to administer CAIR in the interim until the 
court rules on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the 
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable 
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected 
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, 
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided 
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional 
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address 
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states 
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS: (1) Emissions reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) 
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) 
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; 
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including 
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) 
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) 
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in 
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by 
the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS 
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic 
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years 
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, 
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, 
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and

[[Page 31246]]

revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, 
and the state must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first 
regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress 
reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent 
with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set 
forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic 
review of a state's LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI 
impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I areas within the state. The strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for 
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through 
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of 
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with 
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. 
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring 
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether 
RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and 
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs 
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior 
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must 
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of 
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer 
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development 
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. 
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it 
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must 
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and 
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

V. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's regional haze SIP revisions?

    On March 19, 2010, FDEP submitted a revision to the Florida SIP to 
address regional haze requirements as required by EPA's RHR. On August 
31, 2010, FDEP submitted an additional SIP revision to address regional 
haze requirements. Specifically, Florida's August 31, 2010, SIP 
revision adopted amendments to rescind its Reasonable Progress Control 
Technology Rule and to modify its technical justification to rely on 
CAIR and the Industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
(MACT) rule. Further, on April 13, 2012, FDEP submitted a draft SIP 
revision to evaluate BART and reasonable progress provisions for 
several of Florida's EGUs.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    Florida has three Class I areas where visibility is an important 
value within its borders: Everglades National Park, Chassahowitzka 
Wilderness Area, and Saint (St.) Marks Wilderness Area. Florida is 
responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that addresses these 
Class I areas and for consulting with other states whose sources impact 
the areas.
    The Florida regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility 
improvement at Everglades National Park, Chassahowitzka Wilderness 
Area, and St. Marks Wilderness Area, and a LTS to achieve those RPGs 
within the first regional haze implementation period. In developing the 
LTS for the areas, Florida considered both emissions sources inside and 
outside of Florida that may cause or contribute to visibility 
impairment in Florida's Class I areas. The State also identified and 
considered emissions sources within Florida that may cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas in neighboring 
states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO worked with 
the State in developing the technical analyses used to make these 
determinations, including state-by-state contributions to visibility 
impairment in specific Class I areas, which included the Class I areas 
in Florida and those areas affected by emissions from Florida.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, Florida calculated baseline/current and natural 
visibility conditions for its Class I areas, as summarized below.
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light 
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine 
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. 
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for 
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations 
of fine particle components (or from components

[[Page 31247]]

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states to use ``refined'' or 
alternative approaches to 2003 EPA guidance to estimate the values that 
characterize the natural visibility conditions of the Class I areas. 
One alternative approach is to develop and justify the use of 
alternative estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle 
components. Another alternative is to use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' 
that was adopted for use by the IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 
2005.\10\ The purpose of this refinement to the ``old IMPROVE 
equation'' is to provide more accurate estimates of the various factors 
that affect the calculation of light extinction. Florida opted to use 
this refined approach, referred to as the ``new IMPROVE equation,'' for 
its Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort 
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from 
federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) 
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to 
aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the 
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of 
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources 
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The 
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring 
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Natural visibility conditions using the new IMPROVE equation were 
calculated separately for each Class I area by VISTAS. Natural 
background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light extinction 
using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle 
components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity.
    The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review 
of the science \11\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size 
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and 
organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon 
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New 
terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea 
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific 
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to 
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of 
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement 
factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium 
sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 
remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 
soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new 
IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is 
summarized in Appendix B.2 of the March 19, 2010, Florida regional 
haze submittal and in numerous published papers. See for example: 
Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for 
Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. 
March 2006. Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative 
Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. 
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, 
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to 
Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis 
Workgroup. September 2006 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    FDEP estimated baseline visibility conditions at Florida's Class I 
areas using available monitoring data from IMPROVE monitoring sites in 
Everglades National Park, Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, and St. Marks 
Wilderness Area. IMPROVE data records for the Everglades had four years 
of complete data and no substitution of data was made. However, 
Chassahowitzka and St. Marks both required data substitution to make 
their records complete. This substitution was made in accordance with 
EPA guidance for tracking progress which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf. As explained in 
section IV.B, baseline visibility conditions are the same as current 
conditions for the first regional haze SIP. A five-year average of the 
2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated for each of the 20 percent 
worst and 20 percent best visibility days at the Florida Class I areas. 
Appendix B of the Florida regional haze SIP presents the data and 
calculations for the 20 percent best and worst days for the baseline 
period of 2000-2004 for the three Class I areas in Florida. This data 
is also provided at the following Web site: http://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    Baseline visibility on the 20 percent worst days is better at 
Everglades (22.3 deciviews) than Chassahowitzka (25.7 deciviews) or St. 
Marks (26.3 deciviews). On the other hand, natural background 
visibility is slightly worse for Everglades (12.1 deciviews) than 
either Chassahowitzka (11.0 deciviews) or St. Marks (11.7 deciviews). 
The natural and baseline conditions for Florida's Class I areas for 
both the 20 percent worst and best days are presented in Table 1 below.

   Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for the Florida
                              Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Average for 20      Average for 20
          Class I areas           percent worst days   percent best days
                                        (dv\12\)             (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Natural Background Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everglades National Park........                12.1                 5.2
Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area..                11.0                 5.9
St. Marks Wilderness Area.......                11.7                 5.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000-2004)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everglades National Park........                22.3                11.7
Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area..                25.7                15.5
St. Marks Wilderness Area.......                26.3                14.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The term, ``dv,'' is the abbreviation for ``deciview.''


[[Page 31248]]

4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, Florida considered the uniform rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve 
that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's 
Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is 
not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or 
equivalent to the glidepath.
    Florida's SIP presents two sets of graphs for its Class I areas, 
one for the 20 percent best days and one for the 20 percent worst days. 
Florida constructed the graph for the worst days (i.e., the glidepath) 
in accordance with EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting a 
straight graphical line from the baseline level of visibility 
impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of visibility conditions 
representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for its areas. For the 
best days, the graph includes a horizontal straight line spanning from 
baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 to depict no degradation in 
visibility over the implementation period of the SIP. Florida's SIP 
shows that the State's RPGs for its areas provide for improvement in 
visibility for the 20 percent worst days over the period of the 
implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 20 
percent best days over the same period, in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1).
    For the Everglades National Park, the overall visibility 
improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference 
between baseline visibility of 22.30 deciviews for the 20 percent worst 
days and natural conditions of 12.09 deciviews, i.e., 10.21 deciviews. 
Over the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an 
average improvement of 0.170 deciview per year to reach natural 
conditions. Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in order 
to achieve visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform 
rate of progress for the 20 percent worst days at Everglades National 
Park, Florida would need to project at least 2.380 deciviews over the 
first implementation period (i.e., 0.170 deciview x 14 years = 2.380 
deciviews) of visibility improvement from the 22.3 deciviews baseline 
in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or below 19.92 deciviews in 
2018. Similarly, Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area would need a 0.245 
deciview annual improvement over the 14-year first implementation 
period or 3.435 deciview improvement from a baseline of 25.75 deciviews 
to 22.31 deciviews in 2018 and St. Marks Wilderness Area would need a 
0.244 deciview annual improvement over the 14-year first implementation 
period or 3.416 deciview improvement from a baseline of 26.31 deciviews 
to 22.89 deciviews in 2018.

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

    As described in section IV.E of this action, the LTS is a 
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state 
for achieving its RPGs. Florida's LTS for the first implementation 
period addresses the emissions reductions from federal, state, and 
local controls that take effect in the State from the end of the 
baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Florida LTS was 
developed by the State, in coordination with the VISTAS RPO, through an 
evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification of the 
emissions units within Florida and in surrounding states that likely 
have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the State's Class I 
areas; (2) estimation of emissions reductions for 2018 based on all 
controls required or expected under federal and state regulations for 
the 2004-2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison of projected 
visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the 
State's Class I areas; and (4) application of the four statutory 
factors in the reasonable progress analysis for the identified 
emissions units to determine if additional reasonable controls were 
required.
    In a separate action proposing limited disapproval of the regional 
haze SIPs of a number of states, EPA noted that these states relied on 
the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted 
reasonable progress goals. See 76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In that 
action, EPA proposed a limited disapproval of Florida's regional haze 
SIP submittal insofar as the SIP relied on CAIR. For that reason, EPA 
is not taking action on that aspect of Florida's regional haze SIP in 
this action.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical 
analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from Florida. The 2018 
emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and 
applying reductions expected from Federal and state regulations 
affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants 
NOX, PM, and SO2. The BART Guidelines direct 
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3 
impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in 
section V.C.3, VISTAS performed modeling sensitivity analyses which 
demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NH3 do 
not significantly impair visibility in the VISTAS region. Thus, while 
emissions inventories were also developed for NH3 and VOC, 
and applicable federal VOC reductions were incorporated into Florida's 
regional haze analyses, Florida did not further evaluate NH3 
and VOC emissions sources for potential controls under BART or 
reasonable progress.
    VISTAS developed emissions for five inventory source 
classifications: Stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-
road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point sources are 
those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year, 
depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the facility level. 
Stationary area sources are those sources whose individual emissions 
are relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the 
collective emissions from the source category could be significant. 
VISTAS estimated emissions on a countywide level for the inventory 
categories of: (a) Stationary area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) 
mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can move but does not use the 
roadways); and (c) biogenic sources (which are natural sources of 
emissions, such as trees). On-road mobile source emissions are 
estimated by vehicle type and road type, and are summed to the 
countywide level.
    There are many federal and state control programs being implemented 
that VISTAS and Florida anticipate will reduce emissions between the 
end of the baseline period and 2018. Emissions reductions from these 
control programs are projected to achieve substantial visibility 
improvement by 2018 in the Florida Class I areas. The control programs 
relied upon by Florida include CAIR; EPA's NOX SIP Call; 
North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act; consent decrees for Tampa 
Electric, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant Crist; 
NOX and/or VOC reductions from the control rules in 1-hour 
ozone SIPs for Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky; North 
Carolina's NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology rule 
for Philip Morris USA and Norandal USA in the Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock 
Hill 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area; federal 2007 heavy duty 
diesel engine

[[Page 31249]]

standards for on-road trucks and buses; federal Tier 2 tailpipe 
controls for on-road vehicles; federal large spark ignition and 
recreational vehicle controls; and EPA's non-road diesel rules. 
Controls from various federal MACT rules were also utilized in the 
development of the 2018 emission inventory projections. These MACT 
rules include the industrial boiler/process heater MACT (referred to as 
``Industrial Boiler MACT''), the combustion turbine and reciprocating 
internal combustion engines MACTs, and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year 
MACT standards.
    Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. Circuit mandated the vacatur and 
remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\13\ This MACT was vacated 
since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the 
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Definition Rule. EPA 
proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on 
June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011 
(76 FR 15608). The VISTAS modeling included emissions reductions from 
the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule, and Florida did not redo its 
modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued. Even though Florida's 
modeling is based on the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT limits, the 
State's modeling conclusions are unlikely to be affected because the 
expected reductions due to the vacated rule were relatively small 
compared to the State's total SO2, PM2.5, and 
coarse particulate matter (PM10) emissions in 2018 (i.e., 
0.1 to 2.5 percent, depending on the pollutant, of the projected 2018 
SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 inventory). Thus, 
EPA does not expect that differences between the vacated and final 
Industrial Boiler MACT emissions limits would affect the adequacy of 
the existing Florida regional haze SIP. If there is a need to address 
discrepancies between projected emissions reductions from the vacated 
Industrial Boiler MACT and the Industrial Boiler MACT issued March 21, 
2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects Florida to do so in the State's five-
year progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below in Tables 2 and 3 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018 
estimated emission inventories for Florida.

                              Table 2--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for Florida
                                              [tons per year (tpy)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX         PM2.5         PM10         NH3          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................       40,995      302,833       46,147       57,244        1,657      518,721
Area..............................      404,302       28,872       58,878      443,346       37,446       40,491
On-Road Mobile....................      520,757      460,503        7,779       11,148       17,922       20,687
Off-Road Mobile...................      272,072      180,627       17,415       18,281          134       20,614
Fires.............................       42,724       15,942       75,717       85,263        3,102        4,057
Biogenic..........................    1,522,031       36,320            0            0            0            0
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................    2,802,881    1,025,097      205,936      615,282       60,261      604,570
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           Table 3--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for Florida (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX         PM2.5         PM10         NH3          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................       45,233      126,542       46,316       56,478        4,805      213,387
Area..............................      489,975       30,708       72,454      578,516       40,432       38,317
On-Road Mobile....................      219,554      148,486        3,994        8,178       25,885        2,506
Off-Road Mobile...................      183,452      127,885       11,868       12,497          171        7,536
Fires.............................       51,527       19,791       88,756       98,470        3,157        4,129
Biogenic..........................    1,522,031       36,320            0            0            0            0
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................    2,511,772      489,732      223,388      754,139       74,450      265,875
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for 
Uniform Rate of Progress
    VISTAS performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 10 
southeastern states, including Florida. The modeling analysis is a 
complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the modeling 
system. VISTAS used the following modeling system:
     Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model 
is a nonhydrostatic, prognostic, meteorological model routinely used 
for urban- and regional- scale photochemical, PM2.5, and 
regional haze regulatory modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 
Emissions modeling system is an emissions modeling system that 
generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of mobile, non-road 
mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission sources for 
photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale 
Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model 
capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and acid deposition at a 
regional scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was 
CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified through VISTAS with a module for 
Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open and transparent manner that was 
also subjected to outside peer review.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the VISTAS region for 2002 and 
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer cells that covers the 
10 VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) and 
states adjacent to them. This grid is nested within a larger national 
CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer grid cells that covers the 
continental United

[[Page 31250]]

States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a 
representative period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline 
air quality conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due 
to changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. VISTAS 
conducted an in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the 
entire year of 2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of 
meteorology available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The VISTAS 
states modeling was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use 
of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, located 
at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/B-07-002), April 2007, and the EPA document, 
Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 
Regional Haze Regulations, located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001, August 2005, updated 
November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
    VISTAS examined the model performance of the regional modeling for 
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results 
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and 
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts 
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support 
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those 
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the 
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated 
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone, 
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks 
and databases for the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a diverse set of 
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and 
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once VISTAS determined the model 
performance to be acceptable, VISTAS used the model to assess the 2018 
RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling 
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), Florida provided the 
appropriate supporting documentation for all required analyses used to 
determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and modeling used to 
develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are consistent with EPA's 
RHR and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA accepts the VISTAS 
technical modeling to support the LTS and determine visibility 
improvement for the uniform rate of progress because the modeling 
system was chosen and simulated according to EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA 
proposes to agree with the VISTAS model performance procedures and 
results, and that CMAQ is an appropriate tool for the regional haze 
assessments for the Florida LTS and regional haze SIP.
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, Source 
Categories, and Geographic Areas
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures 
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment 
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further 
reducing emissions from different pollutants, source sectors, and 
geographic areas, VISTAS developed emission sensitivity model runs 
using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various 
groups of emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the 
20 percent worst visibility days.
    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting 
visibility in the VISTAS region, VISTAS' contribution assessment, based 
on IMPROVE monitoring data, demonstrated that ammonium sulfate is the 
major contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at 
Class I areas in the VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 20 percent 
worst visibility days in 2000-2004, ammonium sulfate accounted for 75 
to 87 percent of the calculated light extinction at the inland Class I 
areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 percent of the calculated light 
extinction for all but one of the coastal Class I areas in the VISTAS 
states. In contrast, ammonium nitrate contributed five percent or less 
of the calculated light extinction at the VISTAS Class I areas on the 
20 percent worst visibility days. Particulate organic matter (organic 
carbon) accounted for 20 percent or less of the light extinction on the 
20 percent worst visibility days at the VISTAS Class I areas. In 
particular, for Chassahowitzka and St. Marks Wilderness Areas, sulfate 
particles resulting from SO2 emissions contribute roughly 71 
percent to the calculated light extinction on the haziest days. The 
Everglades National Park is somewhat different than any of the other 
Class I areas in the VISTAS area with a greater relative influence from 
organic carbon. The ammonium sulfate contribution, while still 
significant, was only 40 percent of the calculated light extinction on 
the haziest days while organic carbon accounted for 45 percent.
    VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas into two types, either 
``coastal'' or ``inland'' (sometimes referred to as ``mountain'') 
sites, based on common/similar characteristics (e.g., terrain, 
geography, meteorology), to better represent variations in model 
sensitivity and performance within the VISTAS region, and to describe 
the common factors influencing visibility conditions in the two types 
of Class I areas. Florida's Class I areas are ``coastal'' areas.
    Results from VISTAS' emission sensitivity analyses indicate that 
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions are the 
dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst 
days at all Class I areas in VISTAS, including the Florida areas. 
Florida concluded that reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and 
non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS states would have the greatest 
visibility benefits for the Florida Class I areas. Because ammonium 
nitrate is a small contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 
impairment on the 20 percent worst days at the coastal Class I areas in 
VISTAS, the benefits of reducing NOX and NH3 
emissions at these sites are small.
    The VISTAS sensitivity analyses show that VOC emissions from 
biogenic sources such as vegetation also contribute to visibility 
impairment. However, control of these biogenic sources of VOC would be 
extremely difficult, if not impossible. The anthropogenic sources of 
VOC emissions are minor compared to the biogenic sources. Therefore, 
controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions would have little if 
any visibility benefits at the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, 
including Florida. The sensitivity analyses also show that reducing 
organic carbon from point sources, ground level sources, or fires is 
projected to have small to no visibility benefit at the VISTAS Class I 
areas.
    Florida considered the factors listed in under 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(v) and in section IV.E of this action to develop its LTS 
as described below. Florida, in conjunction with VISTAS, demonstrated 
in its SIP that elemental carbon (a product of highway and non-road 
diesel engines, agricultural burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires), 
fine soils (a product of construction activities and activities that 
generate fugitive dust), and ammonia are relatively minor contributors 
to visibility impairment at the Class I areas

[[Page 31251]]

in Florida. Florida considered agricultural and forestry smoke 
management techniques to address visibility impacts from elemental 
carbon. With regard to smoke management, Florida has a certified Smoke 
Management Plan (SMP) meeting the intent of EPA's 1998 Interim Air 
Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf. EPA Region 4 
acknowledged receipt of this SMP and its certification in February 
2002. The SMP follows the requirements for such a plan contained in 
EPA's Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires. The 
Florida Division of Forestry operates a burn authorization program that 
considers the potential for smoke from the burn impacting smoke 
sensitive receptors (e.g., airports, roads, hospitals, urban areas). 
The SMP provides alternatives for burning and is considerate of 
minimizing air pollutants. With regard to fine soils, the State 
considered those activities that generate fugitive dust, including 
construction activities. With regard to the impact of construction 
activities, rule 62-296.320, F.A.C., General Pollution Emission 
Limiting Standards, addresses construction related activities. In 
particular, section (4)(c) of the rule, Unconfined Emissions of 
Particulate Matter, provides that reasonable precautions be taken to 
prevent or eliminate emissions. For example, the rule addresses paving 
and maintenance of roads, parking areas, and yards and the application 
of water or chemicals to control emissions during construction. With 
regard to ammonia, the State has chosen not to develop controls for 
ammonia emissions from Florida sources in this first implementation 
period because of its relatively minor contribution to visibility 
impairment. EPA proposes to concur with the State's technical 
demonstration showing that elemental carbon, fine soils, and ammonia 
are not significant contributors to visibility in the State's Class I 
areas, and therefore, proposes to find that Florida has adequately 
satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by VISTAS predict that 
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial 
point sources will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in 
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, more than any other 
controllable visibility-impairing pollutant. The VISTAS sensitivity 
analysis projects visibility benefits in all three of Florida's Class I 
areas from SO2 reductions from EGUs in nearby VISTAS states. 
Additional, smaller benefits are projected from SO2 
emissions reductions from non-utility industrial point sources. 
SO2 emissions contributions to visibility impairment from 
other RPO regions are substantial in comparison to the VISTAS states' 
contributions, and thus, controlling sources outside of the VISTAS 
region is predicted to provide significant improvements in visibility 
in the Class I areas in VISTAS.
    Taking the VISTAS sensitivity analyses results into consideration, 
Florida concluded that the greatest visibility benefits on the 20 
percent worst days for the Florida Class I areas and Okefenokee in 
Georgia are projected to result from further reducing SO2 
from EGUs. The Everglades is somewhat different than any of the other 
Class I areas in the VISTAS area with a greater relative influence from 
carbon (VOC) and boundary conditions. Contributions from other RPOs are 
comparatively small, and the greatest benefits would likely be from 
further EGU reductions within Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. Additional 
benefits are projected from SO2 emission reductions from 
non-utility, industrial point sources. The pattern of relative 
SO2 contributions from non-EGUs among the various VISTAS 
states is similar to the pattern of relative SO2 
contributions from EGUs. The State chose to focus solely on evaluating 
certain SO2 sources contributing to visibility impairment to 
the State's Class I areas for additional emissions reductions for 
reasonable progress in this first implementation period (described in 
sections V.C.4 and V.C.5 of this action). EPA proposes to agree with 
the State's analyses and conclusions used to determine the pollutants 
and source categories that most contribute to visibility impairment in 
the Class I areas, and proposes to find the State's approach to focus 
on developing a LTS that includes largely additional measures for point 
sources of SO2 emissions to be appropriate.
    SO2 sources for which it is demonstrated that no 
additional controls are reasonable in this current implementation 
period will not be exempted from future assessments for controls in 
subsequent implementation periods or, when appropriate, from the five-
year periodic SIP reviews. In future implementation periods, additional 
controls on these SO2 sources evaluated in the first 
implementation period may be determined to be reasonable, based on a 
reasonable progress control evaluation, for continued progress toward 
natural conditions for the 20 percent worst days and to avoid further 
degradation of the 20 percent best days. Similarly, in subsequent 
implementation periods, the State may use different criteria for 
identifying sources for evaluation and may consider other pollutants as 
visibility conditions change over time.
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable 
Progress Controls in Florida and Surrounding Areas
    As discussed in section V.C.3 of this action, through comprehensive 
evaluations by VISTAS and the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative 
(SAMI),\14\ the VISTAS states concluded that sulfate particles 
resulting from SO2 emissions account for the greatest 
portion of the regional haze affecting the Class I areas in VISTAS 
states, including those in Florida. Utility and non-utility boilers are 
the main sources of SO2 emissions within the southeastern 
United States. VISTAS developed a methodology or criteria for Florida, 
which enables the State to focus its reasonable progress analysis on 
those geographic regions and source categories that impact visibility 
at its Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated in a 
voluntary regional partnership ``to identify and recommend 
reasonable measures to remedy existing and prevent future adverse 
effects from human-induced air pollution on the air quality related 
values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.'' States cooperated 
with FLMs, EPA, industry, environmental organizations, and academia 
to complete a technical assessment of the impacts of acid 
deposition, ozone, and fine particles on sensitive resources in the 
Southern Appalachians. The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August 
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida used the VISTAS criteria as a starting point for developing 
its own methodology. For reasons of better public clarity and 
understanding, Florida chose to develop a reasonable progress source 
selection metric of emissions (Q) divided by distance (d) from the 
Class I area or ``Q/d'' (i.e., 2002 SO2 emissions in tons/
distance in kilometers) that would have the effect of selecting a set 
of source units similar to that selected using the VISTAS criteria.
    Since visibility in Class I areas in or near Florida is expected to 
improve at very near the uniform rate of progress with current rules, 
Florida chose a minimum threshold for reasonable evaluation of sources 
of Q/d = 50. Sources of SO2 with a Q/d greater than or equal 
to 50 (``Q/d = 50'') were considered eligible for a 
reasonable progress control evaluation. Use of this threshold to 
identify sources for evaluation for potential control under reasonable 
progress assures that many of the largest Florida sources of 
SO2 nearest Class I areas are required to

[[Page 31252]]

determine reasonable progress, while smaller sources (not expected to 
provide significant, cost-effective reductions) are excluded. 
Similarly, Florida provided some bounds in the rule for emissions (Q) 
and distance (d) to affect which sources would be subject to a 
reasonable process analysis. First, Florida exempts small (less than 
250 tpy SO2) units, the rationale being that any emissions 
reductions would be very small and likely not very cost effective. 
Second, Florida does not consider any sources outside of 300 kilometers 
from a Class I area. This threshold is consistent with the bounds used 
in the BART exemption analysis where only sources within this distance 
from a Class I area were considered. Third, Florida only considered 
sources that commenced construction or submitted a complete application 
prior to August 30, 1999, a date after which Florida permit review 
requires that visibility specifically be addressed. Florida concluded 
that any sources permitted after that 1999 date had already performed 
the equivalent of a reasonable progress review as part of its 
permitting process. Finally, Florida used the 2002 emissions for Q in 
the Q/d analysis, whereas VISTAS used the projected 2018 emissions. 
This is important in Florida for two reasons. First, Florida updated 
some of the model projections concluding that many Florida utilities 
will convert all of their oil-fired boilers to natural gas with source-
specific information to reflect current plans of these utilities. 
Second, Florida preferred to start with the known largest sources 
having the potential to impair visibility and make sure that these 
sources are addressed through reasonable progress rather than base its 
selection of sources for a reasonable progress control analysis on a 
model estimate of how emissions might be distributed.
    The Florida criterion (Q/d = 50) captures for reasonable 
progress analyses the 1st through 9th, 15th, 18th, 19th, 27th, and 30th 
largest SO2 sources (2002) in the State. When compared to 
the VISTAS criteria, Florida's methodology captured 67.6 percent of the 
total point source SO2 contribution to visibility impairment 
in the VISTAS area of influence around each of the Class I areas, while 
the VISTAS criteria would require 70.5 percent of these SO2 
emissions to be reviewed. EPA believes the approach developed by 
Florida for the Class I areas in Florida is a reasonable methodology to 
prioritize the most significant contributors to regional haze and to 
identify sources to assess for reasonable progress control in the 
State's Class I areas. EPA proposes that the State's approach is 
consistent with EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance and believes that 
the technical approach of Florida was objective and based on several 
analyses and compares well to the VISTAS methodology.
5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable Progress 
Analysis
    FDEP identified 32 emissions units at 14 facilities in Florida (see 
Table 4) with SO2 emissions that were above the state's 
minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation because they were 
modeled to have a Q/d of at least 50. Thirty-one of these 32 emissions 
units are EGUs that were already subject to CAIR. The reasonable 
progress analysis for these units is discussed in section IV.C.5.B of 
this action. FDEP identified only one unit not subject to CAIR at Rock 
Tenn that has a Q/d of at least 50.

       Table 4--Facilities Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to CAIR
Rock Tenn (Jefferson Smurfit) unit 15
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to CAIR:
  City of Gainesville Deerhaven unit 5
    Florida Crushed Stone (Central Power and Lime) unit 18
    FP&L Manatee units 1, 2
    FL&L Port Everglades units 3, 4
    FP&L Turkey Point units 1, 2
    Gulf Power Crist unit 7
    Lakeland Electric CD McIntosh unit 6
    JEA Northside/SJRPP units 3, 16, 17, 27
    Progress Energy Anclote units 1, 2
    Progress Energy Bartow units 1, 2, 3
    Progress Energy Crystal River units 1, 2, 3, 4
    Seminole Electric Cooperative units 1, 2
    Tampa Electric Gannon units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its April 13, 2012, amendment, as summarized in Table 5, FDEP 
documented that nine of the identified EGUs have shut down, two others 
will be shut down by December 31, 2013, and two others have taken 
Federally enforceable permit limits that reduce their contribution to 
regional haze below Florida's threshold for reasonable progress 
analysis. The remaining 19 units will be addressed in later actions.

  Table 5--Facilities with Unit(s) Subject to CAIR That Have Shut Down,
 Will Shut Down by December 31, 2013, or That Have Accepted Enforceable
                            Emissions Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shut Down:
    Progress Energy Bartow units 1, 2, 3
    Tampa Electric Gannon units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
To Be Shut Down by December 31, 2013:
    FP&L Port Everglades units 3, 4
Not Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis Due to Enforceable Emissions
 Limits:
    Florida Crushed Stone unit 18
    JEA Northside unit 27
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31253]]

a. Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to CAIR
    Florida chose to rely on the Industrial Boiler MACT, which was 
promulgated on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608),\15\ in the reasonable 
progress analysis at Rock Tenn (Smurfit Stone) unit 15. This rule will 
require reductions in acid gases that will have the co-benefit of 
reducing SO2 emissions either through the use of scrubbers 
or fuel switching. The Rock Tenn (formerly Smurfit-Stone and Jefferson 
Smurfit) facility in Fernandina Beach, one of the listed reasonable 
progress sources subject to reasonable progress analysis, is subject to 
the Industrial Boiler MACT rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Although EPA stayed the Industrial Boiler MACT rule pending 
reconsideration of additional data, EPA expects to take final action 
to address this data by the end of May 2012. A revised proposal was 
published December 23, 2011. 76 FR 80598. The stay does not affect 
any of the conclusions related to reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's demonstration is a streamlined control analysis showing 
that regulations requiring the most stringent level of controls have 
been adopted for unit 15, and thus, the State did not review the 
remaining statutory factors for reasonable progress.\16\ Florida 
concluded that any source subject to MACT standards must meet a level 
of control that is as stringent as the best-controlled 12 percent of 
sources in the industry. In this case, although the MACT standard is 
for acid gases rather than for SO2, FDEP concluded that it 
is unlikely that the State will identify SO2 emission 
controls more stringent than what the MACT standards will require that 
would be considered reasonable for this facility under reasonable 
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The BART Guidelines specifically address consideration of 
MACT standards and streamlined control analyses when the most 
stringent controls are in place. 70 FR 39163, 39165. Although this 
facility was evaluated for reasonable progress rather than BART, 
many of the same considerations are appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the industrial boiler MACT standard only addresses 
SO2 as a co-benefit, EPA would not ordinarily rely on the 
industrial boiler MACT standard in lieu of a more formal analysis. 
Therefore, EPA reviewed the supporting documentation regarding the 
emissions controls projected necessary to comply with the MACT standard 
for this unit. The facility can pursue a number of options, including 
Dry Sorbent Injection/Fabric Filter (DIFF), wet scrubbing, or 
conversion to natural gas to meet the MACT standards. The supporting 
technical information document for the industrial boiler MACT standard 
concluded that the least cost option for this unit to meet the MACT 
standard would be DIFF, and projected the need to install DIFF with a 
total capital control cost of $35,244,447 and a total annual control 
cost of $10,084,579.\17\ SO2 emissions are projected to be 
reduced 68.6 percent. A wet scrubber, which was not projected to be 
needed to meet the MACT standard for this unit, could reduce emissions 
by 95 percent, although at a significantly higher cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process 
Heaters (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058), Boiler MACT/Impacts 
Memo & Appendices, Appendix A-3: Existing Major Source Boiler and 
Process Heater Cost Detail (Recommended Option), http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From Florida's reasonable progress assessment, it appears that the 
2002 emissions for this unit were 3,242 tons of SO2 per year 
and the Q/d was 50.2, just over Florida's threshold of 50 for RP during 
this planning period. Based on the expected reduction of 68.6 percent 
from this baseline, the facility would reduce actual emissions by 2,224 
tons per year. The resulting estimated cost effectiveness of DIFF for 
SO2 is over $4,500 per ton of SO2 removed for 
this facility. Further, installation of this control technology would 
bring the facility's Q/d well below FDEP's threshold of 50. While a wet 
scrubber would result in a greater emissions reduction, its annual 
costs are anticipated to be substantially higher and less cost 
effective. Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve Florida's approach for 
the Rock Tenn (Smurfit-Stone) facility in Fernandina Beach as being 
appropriate for this facility for reasonable progress during this 
planning period because EPA proposes to agree that it will be unlikely 
that even if Florida prepared a four factor analysis, it would identify 
SO2 emission controls that are more stringent than what the 
MACT standards will require. EPA expects the state to review the status 
of the facility's progress toward installing SO2 controls as 
part of the five-year interim progress reporting requirements.
b. Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to CAIR
    Thirty-one of the 32 emissions units identified for a reasonable 
progress control analysis are EGUs. Two of these units, Florida Crushed 
Stone (Central Power and Lime) unit 18 and JEA Northside unit 27, have 
taken federally enforceable permit conditions that limit SO2 
emissions so that they are not subject to reasonable progress analysis. 
Florida Crushed Stone (Central Power and Lime) unit 18 is a coal-fired 
power plant which is being converted to a biomass fired boiler. It has 
received a construction permit that will prohibit the firing of coal 
once it is converted. Start up, shut down, and bed stabilization will 
use ultra low sulfur distillate oil. The maximum allowed annual 
SO2 emissions are now limited to 591.3 tpy.
    JEA Northside unit 27 is a circulating fluidized bed boiler. In 
2009, this facility received a federally enforceable permit condition 
that limits emissions to 0.2 pounds per million British Thermal Units 
(lb/MMBtu) on a 24-hour average and 0.15 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling 
average resulting a maximum annual emission rate of 1,816 tons. These 
limits reduce the Q/d to 26.4 and 26.2, respectively, for the two 
emissions limits identified above. Hence, Florida determined that the 
unit does not require a reasonable progress control analysis.
    Eleven EGUs are either shut down or will be shut down by December 
31, 2013. The remaining 18 EGUs, located at ten facilities, are: City 
of Deerhaven unit 5; FP&L Manatee units 1, 2; FP&L Turkey Point units 
1, 2; Gulf Power Crist unit 7; JEA Northside/SJRPP unit 3; Lakeland 
Electric CD McIntosh unit 6; Progress Energy Anclote units 1, 2; 
Progress Energy Crystal River units 1, 2, 3, 4; St. Johns River units 
16, 17; and Seminole Electric Cooperative units 1, 2.
    Florida evaluated the SO2 reductions expected from the 
EGU sector in its submittal to determine whether any additional 
controls beyond those required by CAIR would be considered reasonable 
for Florida's EGUs for the first implementation period. All EGU sources 
identified as subject to reasonable progress review were also subject 
to CAIR. For EGUs subject to CAIR, Florida relied on EPA's evaluation 
of a number of factors, including the cost of compliance and the time 
necessary for compliance. In the CAIR, EPA determined that the earliest 
reasonable deadline for compliance with the final highly cost effective 
control levels for reducing emissions was 2015 (70 FR 25197-25198, May 
12, 2005). Florida believes that the cost of compliance and the time 
necessary for compliance are the dominant factors for determining if 
additional reductions would be reasonable from CAIR sources. Based on 
detailed analyses in the May 12, 2005, CAIR rule, Florida concluded 
that CAIR controls satisfy reasonable progress for SO2 for 
the first implementation period ending in 2018. Since CAIR was 
developed using processes similar to the regional haze four-factor 
approach, Florida believes it is reasonable to accept that CAIR 
satisfies reasonable progress requirements for CAIR-subject sources. 
Since the rate of visibility

[[Page 31254]]

improvement in all of the Class I areas in and adjacent to Florida is 
consistent with the uniform rate of progress, Florida asserted that 
reasonable progress was met for the subject sources with CAIR.
    Many of the emission units subject to reasonable progress analysis, 
as defined above, either have already reduced SO2 emissions 
or will be reducing SO2 emissions soon. Even though CAIR is 
not expected to continue to be in effect indefinitely, SO2 
emissions reduction programs are well underway to meeting the amount 
needed to reach the 2018 projection. These reductions have come about 
from company decisions to shut down or re-power certain units, or to 
install new control equipment (scrubbers) in response to the CAIR 
regulations. On August 8, 2011, EPA published the Transport Rule, which 
replaced CAIR. As under CAIR, EPA determined in the Transport Rule that 
Florida is contributing to ozone air quality exceedences in other 
states. However, unlike CAIR, EPA determined in the Transport Rule that 
Florida is contributing to SO2 exceedances in other states. 
As a result, the Florida facilities with EGUs that previously relied on 
CAIR to satisfy their reasonable progress assessment obligations for 
SO2 will be neither subject to CAIR nor able to rely on its 
successor, the Transport Rule, to meet their reasonable progress 
assessment requirements.
    Florida is in the process of reevaluating the reasonable progress 
determinations for these remaining facilities' 18 EGUs and plans to 
address most of them in a subsequent SIP amendment. For this reason, 
EPA is taking no action on the determinations for these 18 EGUs at this 
time. EPA will address these emissions units in separate actions.
6. BART
    BART is an element of Florida's LTS for the first implementation 
period. The BART evaluation process consists of three components: (a) 
an identification of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) an assessment 
of whether the BART-eligible sources are subject to BART, and (c) a 
determination of the BART controls. These components, as addressed by 
FDEP, are discussed as follows.
a. BART-Eligible Sources
    The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all of the 
BART-eligible sources within the state's boundaries. FDEP identified 
the BART-eligible sources in Florida by utilizing the three eligibility 
criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's regulations (40 
CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emissions units at the facility fit within 
one of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the 
emissions units were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and were 
in existence on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units have the potential 
to emit 250 tons or more per year of any visibility-impairing 
pollutant.
    The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO2, 
NOX, and direct PM (including both PM10 and 
PM2.5) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants and to 
exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from 
a source impair visibility in an area. See 70 FR 39160. VISTAS modeling 
demonstrated that VOC from anthropogenic sources and ammonia from point 
sources are not significant visibility-impairing pollutants in Florida, 
as discussed in section V.C.3. of this action. FDEP has determined, 
based on the VISTAS modeling, that ammonia emissions from the State's 
point sources are not anticipated to cause or contribute significantly 
to any impairment of visibility in Class I areas and should be exempt 
for BART purposes.
b. BART-Subject Sources
    The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those 
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to 
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review 
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute 
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the 
BART Guidelines, Florida required each of its BART-eligible sources to 
develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent of their 
contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas.
i. Modeling Methodology
    The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF \18\ modeling 
system (CALPUFF) or another appropriate model to predict the visibility 
impacts from a single source on a Class I area, and therefore, to 
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is 
subject to BART.'' The Guidelines state that EPA believes that CALPUFF 
is the best regulatory modeling application currently available for 
predicting a single source's contribution to visibility impairment. 70 
FR 39162. Florida, in coordination with VISTAS, used the CALPUFF 
modeling system to determine whether individual sources in Florida were 
subject to or exempt from BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Note that EPA's reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire 
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different 
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST, 
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the 
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF 
modeling system are available from the model developer on the 
following Web site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling 
protocol for making individual source attributions and suggest that 
states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues 
prior to modeling. The VISTAS states, including Florida, developed a 
``Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART Analyses.'' 
Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade groups, 
and other interested parties, actively participated in the development 
and review of the VISTAS protocol.
    VISTAS developed a post-processing approach to use the new IMPROVE 
equation with the CALPUFF model results so that the BART analyses could 
consider both the old and new IMPROVE equations. FDEP sent a letter and 
an email to EPA on January 3, 2008, and January 11, 2008, respectively, 
justifying the need for this post-processing approach, and the EPA 
Region 4 Regional Administrator sent Florida a letter of approval dated 
January 17, 2008. Florida's justification included a method to process 
the CALPUFF output and a rationale on the benefits of using the new 
IMPROVE equation. The State's letter requesting approval is located in 
Appendix L on page 206 of the March 19, 2010, Florida regional haze SIP 
submittal and can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 
No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0935. The State's email providing additional 
documentation and EPA Region 4's approval letter are also in the docket 
for this action.
ii. Contribution Threshold
    For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to 
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set 
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single 
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at 
a Class I area.

[[Page 31255]]

The BART Guidelines state that, ``[a] single source that is responsible 
for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered to `cause' 
visibility impairment.'' The BART Guidelines also state that ``the 
appropriate threshold for determining whether a source `contributes to 
visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across states,'' but, 
``[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for determining 
whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment should not be 
higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' The Guidelines affirm that states are free 
to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the location of a large 
number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a Class I area 
justifies this approach.
    Florida used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for 
determining which sources are subject to BART and concluded that the 
threshold of 0.5 deciview was appropriate in this situation. While 
Florida has 46 sources with BART-eligible units, they are scattered 
about the State and, in FDEP's judgment, are not clustered in 
sufficient quantity to warrant a change to the threshold value of 0.5 
deciview. FDEP concluded, and EPA proposes to agree, that a 0.5 
deciview threshold was appropriate in this instance and a lower 
threshold is not warranted.
iii. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    Florida initially identified 46 sources with BART-eligible units. 
Six BART-eligible sources made changes to their operation in order to 
exempt from further BART review. These sources are: Georgia Pacific-
Palatka; Rock Tenn (Smurfit-Stone)--Fernandina Beach; Rock Tenn 
(Smurfit-Stone)--Panama City; Mosaic New Wales; Mosaic Riverview; and 
CF Industries. All of these changes have been incorporated into their 
air permits and are federally enforceable. Table 6 identifies the 
remaining 40 BART-eligible sources identified in FDEP's March 19, 2010, 
submittal, and of these, lists the five sources identified as subject 
to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. Florida relied 
on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX for its EGUs subject to 
CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2 and NOX were 
not analyzed.
    \20\ Ibid.

   Table 6--Initial List of Florida BART-Eligible and Subject-to-BART
                                 Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGUs Subject to BART: \19\
    Florida Power Corporation--Crystal River Power Plant (Units 1, 2)
    Florida Power & Light--Turkey Point Power Plant (Units 1, 2)
EGUs to be Shut Down by December 31, 2013:
    Tallahassee City--Purdom Generating Station (Unit 7)
Non-EGUs Subject to BART:
    CEMEX
    White Springs Agricultural Chemicals-SR/SC Complex
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to BART
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources: \20\
    City of Gainesville--Deerhaven Generating Station (Unit 3)
    City of Vero Beach--City of Vero Beach Municipal Utilities (Units 2,
     3, 4)
    City of Tallahassee--Arvah B.Hopkins Generating Station (Units 1, 4)
    Florida Power Corp.--Anclote Power Plant (Units 1, 2)
    Florida Power Corp.--Bartow Plant (Unit 3)
    Florida Power & Light--Cape Canaveral Power Plant (Units 1, 2)
    Florida Power & Light--Manatee Power Plant (Units 1, 2)
    Florida Power & Light--Martin Power Plant (Units 1, 2)
    Florida Power & Light--Port Everglades Power Plant (Units 3, 4)
    Florida Power & Light--Putnam Power Plant (Units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
     9, 10)
    Florida Power & Light--Riviera Power Plant (Unit 4)
    Gulf Power Company--Crist Electric Generating Plant (Units 6, 7)
    Gulf Power Company--Lansing Smith Plant (Units 1, 2)
    JEA Northside/SJRPP (Unit 3)
    Reliant Energy Indian River--Indian River Plant (Units 2, 3)
    Lakeland Electric--Charles Larsen Memorial Power Plant (Unit 4)
    Lakeland Electric--C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant (Units 1, 5)
    Tampa Electric Company--Big Bend Station (Units 1, 2, 3)
Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt Sources:
    Atlantic Sugar Association--Atlantic Sugar Mill
    Buckeye Florida--Perry
    ExxonMobil Production--St Regis Treating Facility and Jay Gas Plant
    IFF Chemical Holdings, Inc.
    IMC Phosphates Company--South Pierce
    International Paper Company--Pensacola Mill
    Mosaic--Bartow
    Mosaic--Green Bay Plant
    Osceola Farms
    Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op
    U.S. Sugar Corp.--Clewiston Mill and Refinery
    Model Plant Exempt Sources:
        Solutia Inc.
        Lake Worth Util.--Tom G. Smith Plant (Units 6, 9)
        Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority--H D King Power Plant (Units 7,
         8)

[[Page 31256]]

 
        Sterling Fibers, Inc.
    ShutDown Sources:
        U.S. Sugar Corp.--Bryant Mill
        IMC Phosphates Company--Port Sutton Terminal
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two of the 17 non-EGU facilities (CEMEX and White Springs 
Agricultural Chemicals-SR/SC Complex) were found to be subject to BART 
and were required to prepare a full BART determination analysis. Eleven 
non-EGU sources demonstrated that they are exempt from being subject to 
BART by modeling less than a 0.5 deciview visibility impact at the 
affected Class I areas. This modeling involved assessing the visibility 
impact of emissions of NOx, SO2, and 
PM10 as applicable to individual facilities. Two facilities 
(Solutia Inc. and Sterling Fibers, Inc) were exempt from BART because 
they met EPA's model plant criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 
39162-39163) and thus, were not evaluated further. Two facilities 
permanently shut down prior to preparing an analysis.
    The 23 sources with BART-eligible EGUs relied on Florida's decision 
to use CAIR emissions limits for SO2 and NOX to 
satisfy their obligation to comply with BART requirements in accordance 
with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore, EGU sources only modeled 
PM10 emissions. Prior to the CAIR remand, the State's 
reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART for NOX and SO2 
for affected CAIR EGUs was fully approvable and in accordance with 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(4). In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited 
disapproval of the Florida regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in 
the State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand of CAIR 
to EPA by the D.C. Circuit. See 76 FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not 
taking action in this proposed rulemaking to address the State's 
reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements.
    On August 8, 2011, EPA published the Transport Rule which replaced 
CAIR. As under CAIR, EPA determined in the Transport Rule that Florida 
is contributing to ozone air quality problems in other states. However, 
unlike CAIR, EPA determined in CSAPR that Florida is contributing to 
SO2 problems in other states. As a result, the Florida 
facilities with EGUs that previously relied on CAIR to satisfy their 
BART obligations for SO2 would no longer be subject to CAIR 
nor able to rely on its successor, the Transport Rule, to meet their 
BART assessment requirements.
    Accordingly, FDEP has initiated an effort to reassess BART for all 
of these facilities with BART-eligible EGUs. In its April 13, 2012, 
proposed SIP amendment, the State evaluated 12 of the 23 affected 
facilities. Table 7 summarizes the reevaluated facilities with BART-
eligible EGUs.

           Table 7--Reevaluated Florida BART-Eligible Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Facilities With Units Subject to BART Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Controls Meet the Most Stringent Level of Control:
    Tampa Electric Company--Big Bend Station (Units 1, 2, 3)
Facilities That Will Shut Down by December 31, 2013:
    Florida Power & Light--Port Everglades Power Plant (Units 3, 4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to BART Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities That Have Shut Down:
    City of Tallahassee--Arvah B. Hopkins Generating Station (Unit 4)
    Florida Power & Light--Riviera Power Plant (Unit 4)
    Florida Power Corp.--Bartow Plant (Unit 3)
    Lakeland Electric--Charles Larsen Memorial Power Plant (Unit 4)
    Florida Power & Light--Cape Canaveral Power Plant (Units 1, 2)
    Ft Pierce Utilities Authority--H D King Power Plant (Units 7, 8)
BART Modeling Exempt Sources (SO2, NOX, PM10):
    City of Gainesville Deerhaven (Unit 3)
    City of Vero Beach--City of Vero Beach Municipal Utilities (Units 2,
     3, 4)
    Florida Power & Light--Putnam Power Plant (Units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
     9, 10)
    Lake Worth Utilities--Tom G. Smith (Units 6, 9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 23 EGU BART-eligible facilities, FDEP identified 11 units at 
eight facilities that have shut down or will be shut down by December 
31, 2013,\21\ 14 units at four facilities that model a contribution of 
less than 0.5 deciview when considering all three pollutants 
contributing to visibility impairment (SO2, NOX, 
PM10), and three units at one facility which has recently 
installed SO2 and NOX controls that the State has 
determined to be the most stringent level of control available for 
these sources. The remaining 11 facilities with BART-eligible EGUs 
subject to CAIR (a total of 20 EGUs) that now have an incomplete BART 
analysis will be addressed by Florida in a future SIP revision, and by 
EPA in subsequent actions. Table 8 lists the revised list of BART-
eligible sources, those with a completed BART analysis, and sources 
with an incomplete BART analysis at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Florida had previously identified that the City of 
Tallahassee--Purdom Generating Station (Unit 7) would be shut down 
by December 31, 2013, in the State's March 19, 2010, SIP revision.

[[Page 31257]]



   Table 8--Revised List of BART-Eligible and Subject-to-BART Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Facilities With Unit(s) With a Complete BART Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGUs With Existing Controls That Meet the Most Stringent Level of
 Control:
    Tampa Electric Company--Big Bend Station (Units 1, 2, 3)
EGUs To Be Shut Down by December 31, 2013:
    City of Tallahassee--Purdom Generating Station (Unit 7)
    Florida Power & Light--Port Everglades Power Plant (Units 3, 4)
Non-EGU BART Analyses:
    CEMEX
    White Springs Agricultural Chemical--SR/SC Complex
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Facilities With Unit(s) With an Incomplete BART Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGUs Subject to CAIR With PM Only BART Analysis \22\
 
    City of Tallahassee--Arvah B.Hopkins Generating Station (Unit 1)
    Florida Power Corp.--Anclote Power Plant (Units 1, 2)
    Florida Power Corp.--Crystal River Power Plant (Units 1, 2)
    Florida Power & Light--Manatee Power Plant (Units 1, 2)
    Florida Power & Light--Martin Power Plant (Units 1, 2)
    Florida Power & Light--Turkey Point Power Plant (Units 1, 2)
    Gulf Power Company--Crist Electric Generating Plant (Units 6, 7)
    Gulf Power Company--Lansing Smith Plant (Units 1, 2)
    JEA Northside--SJRPP (Unit 3)
    Lakeland Electric--C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant (Units 1, 5)
    Reliant Energy Indian River--Indian River Plant (Units 2, 3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to BART Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU CAIR and BART Modeling Exempt Sources (SO2, NOX, PM10):
    City of Gainesville--Deerhaven Generating Station (Unit 3)
    City of Vero Beach--City of Vero Beach Municipal Utilities (Units 2,
     3, 4)
    Florida Power & Light--Putnam Power Plant (Units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
     9, 10)
    Lake Worth Utilities--Tom G. Smith (Units 6, 9)
    EGU-Shut Down Sources:
        City of Tallahassee--Arvah B. Hopkins Generating Station (Unit
         4)
        Florida Power & Light--Riviera Power Plant (Unit 4)
        Florida Power Corp.--Bartow Plant (Unit 3)
        Lakeland Electric--Charles Larsen Memorial Power Plant (Unit 4)
        Ft Pierce Utilities Authority--H D King Power Plant (Units 7, 8)
        Florida Power & Light--Cape Canaveral Power Plant (Units 1, 2)
    Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt Sources:
        Atlantic Sugar Association--Atlantic Sugar Mill
        Buckeye Florida--Perry
        ExxonMobil Production--St Regis Treating Facility and Jay Gas
         Plant
        IFF Chemical Holdings, Inc.
        IMC Phosphates Company--South Pierce
        International Paper Company--Pensacola Mill
        Mosaic--Bartow
        Mosaic--Green Bay Plant
        Osceola Farms
        Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op
        U.S. Sugar Corp.--Clewiston Mill and Refinery
    Non-EGU Model Plant Exempt Sources
        Solutia Inc.
        Sterling Fibers, Inc.
    Non-EGU Shut Down Sources
        U.S. Sugar Corp.--Bryant Mill
        IMC Phosphates Company--Port Sutton Terminal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. The Florida relied on
  CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX for its EGUs subject to CAIR, in
  accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2 and NOX were not
  analyzed.

    For the 17 non-EGU BART-eligible facilities in Table 8, the two 
sources found subject to BART and requiring a full BART determination 
analysis are CEMEX and White Springs Agricultural Chemical--SR/SC 
Complex. These BART-subject sources were required to complete BART 
determination modeling, which included an analysis of the five CAA BART 
factors, to determine appropriate BART controls.
c. BART Determinations
    Five BART-eligible sources (i.e., CEMEX, White Springs Agricultural 
Chemical--SR/SC Complex, City of Tallahassee--Purdom Generating 
Station, Tampa Electric Company--Big Bend Station (Units 1, 2, 3), and 
Florida Power and Light (FPL)--Port Everglades (Units 3, 4)) modeled 
visibility impacts of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold for BART 
exemption. These five facilities are therefore considered to be subject 
to BART. Consequently, they each submitted permit applications to the 
State that included their proposed BART determinations.

[[Page 31258]]

    In accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine the level of 
control that represents BART for each source, the State first reviewed 
existing controls on these BART-subject sources to assess whether these 
constituted the best controls currently available, then identified what 
other technically feasible controls are available, and finally, 
evaluated the technically feasible controls using the five BART 
statutory factors. The State's evaluations and conclusions, and EPA's 
assessment, are summarized below.
i. CEMEX
    CEMEX operates an existing Portland cement plant with two Portland 
cement lines (Lines 1 and 2). These include: two Polysius GEPOL 
preheater kilns (Kilns 1 and 2); two clinker coolers and associated raw 
mills; finish mills; cement and clinker handling equipment; coal 
handling equipment; silos; and air pollution control devices. The 
nominal capacity of each kiln is 780,000 tpy of clinker. The kiln was 
subjected to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review and 
Best Available Control Technology determination (BACT) review since 
1977 one or more times, and FDEP determined the permitted values 
compare favorably to recent determinations made throughout the country 
even for new units. Overall, the controls consist of effective 
SO2 scrubbing in the calciner; low raw material sulfur; 
fabric filter baghouses for PM; and selective non-catalytic reduction 
(SNCR) for NOX control. All controls including emissions 
limits are federally enforceable.
    NOX Kiln Controls: To control emissions of 
NOX, CEMEX is required to either operate the installed SNCR 
system or install a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system between 
the preheater and the raw mill to augment or replace the existing SNCR 
system with an emission limit of 1.2 lb/ton of kiln preheater feed.
    SO2 Kiln Controls: The present SO2 control 
system consisting of dry alkali and lime scrubbing in the kiln system 
and limestone scrubbing in the raw mill is the most stringent control 
available, and FDEP determined that it constitutes BART.
    PM/PM10 Kiln Controls: Each subject-to-BART emissions 
unit at the facility identified as subject to BART is required to 
control PM/PM10 by a baghouse system. Bags/filters in each 
baghouse control system shall be selected based on a PM design outlet 
specification of 0.01 grain (gr) per dry standard cubic foot (dscf) and 
a PM10 design outlet specification of 0.007 gr/dscf.
    FDEP determined it was not necessary to submit a full five-factor 
analysis and determined that the controls in place constituted BART.
ii. White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.
    White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc., also known as PCS 
Phosphate, operates a phosphate complex that processes phosphate rock 
to produce several products at the Suwannee River/Swift Creek Complex 
(two plants). The facility consists of one rock grinder, two phosphoric 
acid plants, two defluorinated phosphate (DFP) plants, one dical 
process, two diammonium phosphate (DAP) plants, one monoammonium (MAP)/
DAP storage building, one MAP/DAP screen/shipping building, four 
sulfuric acid plants (SAP), two phosphoric acid filters, four 
superphosphoric acid plants, one green superphosphoric acid plant, the 
Swift Creek Mine rock dryer, and one acid clarification plant. The 
facility also has storage silos associated with the Swift Creek Mine 
and the DFP plant.
    Sulfuric acid is produced on-site by burning elemental sulfur, 
converting the resulting SO2 to sulfur trioxide, and 
absorbing it into a recirculating sulfuric acid solution. Phosphoric 
acid is made by acidulation of phosphate rock with sulfuric acid. Waste 
gypsum is produced and stacked. The phosphoric acid is reacted with 
ammonia to make MAP and DAP and phosphoric acid is reacted with 
limestone and other raw materials to make animal feed ingredients.
    SAP C and D plants use the double absorption process to control 
SO2 emissions and demisters to control sulfuric acid mist 
emissions.
    All of the DAP/MAP plants include medium to high efficiency wet 
scrubbers that use phosphoric acid and then pond water to reduce PM 
from the reactor and granulators. They are also equipped with abatement 
scrubbers using fresh water for final cleanup. Emissions from the 
dryers, coolers, mills and screens are controlled by cyclones, wet 
scrubbers with phosphoric acid or pond water as the scrubbing medium, 
and by abatement scrubbers using fresh water.
    A and B DFP Coolers and Swift Creek Mine Silos use wet cyclonic 
scrubbers with pond water as the scrubbing medium to control 
particulate matter emissions.
    A and B DFP Plants include cross-flow packed wet scrubber with pond 
water as the scrubbing medium to control PM emissions.
    The X Train Dical Process rotary dryer includes a series of wet 
venturi and cyclonic scrubbers to control PM emissions.
    The 2 Phosphate Rock Grinder, X Train limestone handling, 
the DFP Feed Prep area, and the DFP Product Silos include fabric filter 
baghouses designed to recover process or product raw materials and to 
control PM emissions.
    The Swift Creek Mine Rock Dryer and Swift Creek Mine Silos include 
wet cyclonic scrubber to control PM emissions. The Rock Dryer is fired 
primarily with natural gas.
    FDEP reviewed the facility following the BART Guidelines. For most 
BART-subject units at the facility, the State performed a full BART 
determination analysis. However, for some BART-subject units, the State 
found that the existing controls were the best available and no further 
review was performed in accordance with the BART Guidelines. See 70 FR 
39165. In other instances, BART-subject units were modified after 
August 7, 1977, subject to PSD review, and BACT controls were 
installed. The State took this into account during the review process, 
and in these instances, found that the level of controls already in 
place for BACT are consistent with and determined to be BART.
    White Springs submitted its BART permit application with proposed 
BART determination on the basis of the original design, and compared it 
to subsequent recent PSD/BACT reviews of similar emissions units at 
other facilities. FDEP finds that the levels of controls already in 
place are consistent with those found to be BACT in recent 
determinations and represent BART for this facility. Emissions limits 
consistent with this finding were incorporated into the final BART 
permit with some minor technical adjustments.
iii. City of Tallahassee--Purdom Generating Station
    The City of Tallahassee operates the Sam O. Purdom Generating 
Station. Unit 7 at this facility is a BART-eligible EGU that is fired 
primarily with fuel oil and natural gas. The unit began operation in 
1966 and is a 621 MMBtu per hour steam generator paired with a nominal 
44 MW steam-electrical generator. FDEP issued a final air construction 
Permit No. 120001-008-AC on September 11, 2007, requiring that Unit 7 
permanently cease operation no later than December 31, 2013, to satisfy 
BART.
iv. Tampa Electric Company--Big Bend Station (Units 1, 2, 3)
    Tampa Electric Company's Big Bend Station Units 1, 2, and 3 are 
BART-

[[Page 31259]]

eligible coal-fired units with a combined capacity of approximately 
1,200 MW. This facility entered into a consent decree with FDEP and EPA 
to reduce emissions at Big Bend Station. These legally enforceable 
agreements required the upgrade of the ESP, upgrades to the flue gas 
desulfurization (FGD) scrubbers for SO2, and the 
installation of SCR for NOX control. The PM emission limit 
is 0.03lb/MMBtu, the FGD is required to achieve 95 percent reduction 
efficiency, and the SCR lowers NOX emissions to 
0.12 lb/MMBtu. FDEP has concluded that these are the most stringent 
controls technically available for this source and, thus, no further 
analysis for BART is necessary in accordance with the BART Guidelines. 
See 70 FR 39165.
v. Florida Power and Light (FPL)--Port Everglades (Units 3, 4)
    On January 24, 2012, Florida Power and Light submitted an 
application to construct one nominal 1,250 MW combined cycle unit and 
ancillary equipment at the FPL Port Everglades Plant. The four existing 
fossil fuel-fired steam generators with a total nominal capacity of 
1,200 MW will be shut down and dismantled as part of this project. The 
BART-eligible units 3 and 4 are scheduled to be demolished in the first 
quarter of 2013 but not later than December 31, 2013. FDEP included a 
copy of the permit for informational purposes in Exhibit 2.
vi. EPA Assessment
    EPA proposes to agree with Florida's analyses and conclusions for 
the five BART-subject sources described above. EPA has reviewed the 
State's analyses and believes that they were conducted in a manner that 
is consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines and EPA's Air Pollution 
Control Cost Manual (http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html#cccinfo).
vii. Enforceability of Limits
    The BART determinations for each of the five facilities discussed 
above and the resulting emissions limits and conditions were adopted by 
Florida and have been incorporated into the facilities' title V 
operating permits. Copies of these permits were included for 
informational purposes in an attachment to the Florida Regional Haze 
SIP submittal of March 19, 2010, and in the April 13, 2012, amendment 
as Exhibit 2.
7. RPGs
    The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish RPGs 
for each Class I area within the state (expressed in deciviews) that 
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility. 
VISTAS modeled visibility improvements under existing Federal and state 
regulations for the period 2004-2018 and additional control measures 
that the VISTAS states planned to implement in the first implementation 
period. At the time of VISTAS modeling, some of the other states with 
sources potentially impacting visibility at Florida's Class I areas had 
not yet made final control determinations for BART and/or reasonable 
progress, and thus, these controls were not included in the modeling 
submitted by Florida. Any controls resulting from those determinations 
will provide additional emissions reductions and resulting visibility 
improvement, giving further assurance that Florida will achieve its 
RPGs. This modeling demonstrates that the 2018 base control scenario 
provides for an improvement in visibility better than the uniform rate 
of progress for two of the three Florida Class I areas for the most 
impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensures no 
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same 
period.
    As shown in Table 9 below, visibility improvements on the 20 
percent worst days in Florida's Class I areas are expected to be 
slightly better than the uniform rate of progress by 2018 for 
Everglades and Chassahowitzka and slightly less than the uniform rate 
of progress for St. Marks based on emissions reductions from existing 
and planned emissions controls. Based on the projected rate of 
progress, St. Marks would achieve natural conditions by 2067. Also, the 
RPGs for the 20 percent best days provide greater visibility 
improvement by 2018 than current best day conditions at all three 
sites. The modeling supporting the analysis of these RPGs is consistent 
with EPA guidance prior to the CAIR remand. The regional haze 
provisions specify that a state may not adopt an RPG that represents 
less visibility improvement than is expected to result from other CAA 
requirements during the implementation period. See 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the CAIR states with Class I areas, 
including Florida, took into account emissions reductions anticipated 
from CAIR in determining their 2018 RPGs.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas similarly 
relied on CAIR emission reductions within the state to address some 
or all of their contribution to visibility impairment in other 
states' Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area state(s) used 
to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). Certain surrounding non-
CAIR states also relied on reductions due to CAIR in nearby states 
to develop their regional haze SIP submittals.

                                           Table 9--Florida 2018 RPGs
                                                 [In deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Uniform rate
                                                  2018 RPG--20%  of progress at                   2018 RPG-- 20%
                                    Baseline       worst days       2018--20%        Baseline        best days
         Class I area           visibility--20%   (improvement     worst days    visibility--20%   (improvement
                                   worst days    from baseline)   (improvement      best days     from baseline)
                                                                 from baseline)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area            25.75    22.27 (3.48)    22.31 (3.44)            15.51    13.91 (1.60)
Everglades National Park......            22.30    19.90 (2.40)    19.92 (2.38)            11.69    11.46 (0.25)
St. Marks Wilderness Area.....            26.31    23.01 (3.30)    22.89 (3.42)            14.37    12.80 (1.57)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPGs for the Class I areas in Florida are based on modeled 
projections of future conditions that were developed using the best 
available information at the time the analysis was done. These 
projections can be expected to change as additional information 
regarding future conditions becomes available. For example, new sources 
may be built, existing sources may shut down or modify production in 
response to changed economic circumstances, and facilities may change 
their emission characteristics as they install control equipment to 
comply with new rules. It would be both impractical and resource-
intensive to require a state to continually revise its RPGs every time

[[Page 31260]]

an event affecting these future projections changed.
    EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement to meet a long-
term goal based on modeled projections of future visibility conditions, 
and addressed the uncertainties associated with RPGs in several ways. 
EPA made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory standard 
which must be achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR at 35733. At the 
same time, EPA established a requirement for a midcourse review and, if 
necessary, correction of the states' regional haze plans. See 40 CFR 
52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls for a five-year progress review 
after submittal of the initial regional haze plan. The purpose of this 
progress review is to assess the effectiveness of emission management 
strategies in meeting the RPG and to provide an assessment of whether 
current implementation strategies are sufficient for the state or 
affected states to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, based on its 
assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I area will not be met, the RHR 
requires the state to take appropriate action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h). 
The nature of the appropriate action will depend on the basis for the 
State's conclusion that the current strategies are insufficient to meet 
the RPGs. Florida specifically committed to follow this process in the 
LTS portion of its submittal. Any resulting visibility improvement 
differences resulting from changes in coverage for Florida's EGUs from 
CAIR will be assessed in the five-year progress report SIP.

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements

    EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI 
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as 
explained in sections IV.F and IV.G of this action. Under EPA's RAVI 
regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral 
vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral 
vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the 
mandatory Class I area of a specific landmark or panorama located 
outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.'' 
Visibility in any mandatory Class I area includes any integral vista 
associated with that area. The FLMs did not identify any integral 
vistas in Florida. In addition, the Class I areas in Florida are 
neither experiencing RAVI, nor are any of the State's sources affected 
by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the Florida regional haze SIP submittal 
does not explicitly address the two requirements regarding coordination 
of the regional haze with the RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions. 
However, Florida previously made a commitment to address RAVI should 
the FLM certify visibility impairment from an individual source.\24\ 
EPA proposes to find that this regional haze submittal appropriately 
supplements and augments Florida's RAVI visibility provisions to 
address regional haze by updating the monitoring and LTS provisions as 
summarized below in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Florida visibility SIP revisions were submitted to EPA 
on August 27, 1987, and approved by EPA on June 30, 1988 (53 FR 
24695).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Florida regional haze SIP submittal, FDEP updated its 
visibility monitoring program and developed a LTS to address regional 
haze. Also in this submittal, FDEP affirmed its commitment to complete 
items required in the future under EPA's RHR. Specifically, FDEP made a 
commitment to review and revise its regional haze implementation plan 
and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every 10 years 
thereafter. See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance with the requirements 
listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) of EPA's regional haze regulations and 40 
CFR 51.306(c) of the RAVI LTS regulations, FDEP made a commitment to 
submit a report to EPA on progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory 
Class I area located within Florida and in each mandatory Class I area 
located outside Florida which may be affected by emissions from within 
Florida. The progress report is required to be in the form of a SIP 
revision and is due every five years following the initial submittal of 
the regional haze SIP. Consistent with EPA's monitoring regulations for 
RAVI and regional haze, Florida will rely on the IMPROVE network for 
compliance purposes, in addition to any RAVI monitoring that may be 
needed in the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the 
Florida new source review (NSR) rules continue to provide a framework 
for review and coordination with the FLMs on new sources which may have 
an adverse impact on visibility in either form (i.e., RAVI and/or 
regional haze) in any Class I area. The Florida regional haze SIP 
contains a plan addressing the associated monitoring and reporting 
requirements. See 53 FR 24695 (June 30, 1988).

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Florida is the 
IMPROVE network. As discussed in section V.B.2 of this action, there 
are currently three IMPROVE sites in Florida, which serve as the 
monitoring sites for the three Class I areas in Florida. IMPROVE 
monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for the regional 
haze program and is relied upon in the Florida regional haze submittal. 
In the submittal, Florida states its intention to rely on the IMPROVE 
network for complying with the regional haze monitoring requirement in 
EPA's RHR for the current and future regional haze implementation 
periods.
    Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly 
continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-
year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding 
five years of data. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System 
(VIEWS) web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other RPOs to 
provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. 
Florida is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain the VIEWS 
or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the 
IMPROVE data.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, FDEP and the local air 
agencies in the State operate a PM2.5 network of the filter-
based federal reference method monitors, federal equivalent method 
continuous monitors and continuous mass monitors, and filter-based 
speciated monitors. These PM2.5 measurements help FDEP 
characterize air pollution levels in areas across the state, and 
therefore aid in the analysis of visibility improvement in and near the 
Class I areas.

F. Consultation With States and FLMs

1. Consultation With Other States
    In December 2006 and May 2007, the State Air Directors from the 
VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose 
of the meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for 
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states 
invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide 
additional feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses 
showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of 
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.
    FDEP has evaluated the impact of sources on Class I areas in 
neighboring states. FDEP sent letters to Alabama and Georgia 
documenting its analysis using the State's AOI methodology and its 
approach to address the visibility impairment at the Class I areas in 
those states. The neighboring states were

[[Page 31261]]

supportive of the Florida approach. The documentation for these formal 
consultations is provided in Exhibit 3 of Florida's SIP.
    EPA proposes to find that Florida has adequately addressed the 
consultation requirements in the RHR and appropriately documented its 
consultation with other states in its SIP submittal.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
    Through the VISTAS RPO, Florida and the nine other member states 
worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the 
Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support the 
regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. FDEP provided a draft plan 
dated August 27, 2009, to the FLMs (and EPA) for review. Exhibit 3 of 
the Florida regional haze SIP submittal includes the October 26, 2009, 
comment letter from the U.S. National Park Service and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, which indicates that the FLMs appear to be 
generally supportive of the State's regional haze SIP, and were pleased 
with the technical information summarized in the regional haze SIP 
narrative. The bulk of the comments requested clarifications to the SIP 
or raised specific issues on the BART determinations that Florida 
addressed. FDEP responded to all the comments and made the requested 
clarifications as specified in its final SIP submittal. To address the 
requirement for continuing consultation procedures with the FLMs under 
40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), FDEP made a commitment in the SIP to ongoing 
consultation with the FLMs on regional haze issues throughout 
implementation of its plan, including annual discussions. FDEP also 
affirms in the SIP that FLM consultation is required for those sources 
subject to the State's NSR regulations.

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    As summarized in sectionV.D of this action, consistent with 40 CFR 
51.308(g), FDEP affirmed its commitment to submitting a progress report 
in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years following this 
initial submittal of the Florida regional haze SIP. The report will 
evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the mandatory Class I 
areas located within Florida and in each mandatory Class I area located 
outside Florida that may be affected by emissions from within Florida. 
Florida also offered recommendations for several technical improvements 
that, as funding allows, can support the State's next LTS. These 
recommendations are discussed in detail in the Florida SIP submittal in 
Appendix K.
    If another state's regional haze SIP identifies that Florida's SIP 
needs to be supplemented or modified, and if Florida agrees after 
appropriate consultation, today's action may be revisited or additional 
information and/or changes will be addressed in the five-year progress 
report SIP revision.

VI. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of three revisions to the 
Florida SIP submitted by the State of Florida on March 19, 2010, August 
31, 2010, and April 13, 2012, as meeting some of the applicable 
regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of 
the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308, as described previously in this 
action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines 
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * * 
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or 
more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act 
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not create any new 
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under 
the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 
Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that today's proposal does not include a federal 
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to 
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. This federal action proposes to approve pre-existing 
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. 
Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have Federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have Federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under

[[Page 31262]]

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with 
state and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
Federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, 
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires federal agencies to 
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. 
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus 
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs 
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law 
or otherwise impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 14, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-12777 Filed 5-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


