[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31240-31262]
[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

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER> and by
electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Michele Notarianni can be
reached at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and by electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

    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

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.

    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

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

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

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.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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)

        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.

   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.

    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.