Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Florida; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 53250-53269 [2013-21028]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53250-53269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21028]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0935; FRL- 9900-31-Region4]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a full approval of the regional haze state 
implementation plan (SIP) from the State of Florida, submitted through 
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), on March 19, 
2010, as amended on August 31, 2010, and September 17, 2012. Florida's 
SIP submittal addresses regional haze for the first implementation 
period. Specifically, this SIP submittal addresses the requirements of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act'') and EPA's rules that require 
states to prevent any

[[Page 53251]]

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 toward 
the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. In this action, EPA finds that Florida's regional haze SIP meets 
all of the regional haze requirements of the CAA. Thus, EPA is 
finalizing a full approval of Florida's entire regional haze SIP.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective September 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0935. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the 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 for 
further information. The Regional Office's official hours of business 
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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. Michele Notarianni can 
be reached at telephone number (404) 562-9031 and by electronic mail at 
notarianni.michele@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this final action?
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?
    A. Response to Comments on May 25, 2012, Proposal
    B. Response to Comments on December 10, 2012, Proposal
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this final action

    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 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors 
(e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), ammonia (NH3), and volatile organic 
compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to 
form fine particulate matter (PM2.5), 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.
    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), commonly referred to as the Regional Haze Rule 
(RHR). The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations by adding 
provisions addressing regional haze impairment and establishing 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. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 
states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 
51.308(b) required states to submit the first implementation plan 
addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 
17, 2007. Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards 
the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Federal 
Class I areas. These 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 Best Available 
Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for the purpose of eliminating or 
reducing visibility impairment.
    On March 19, 2010, and August 31, 2010, FDEP submitted and 
subsequently amended Florida's SIP to address regional haze in Florida 
and other states' Class I areas. On May 25, 2012, EPA published an 
action proposing a limited approval of Florida's regional haze SIP to 
address the first implementation period for regional haze.\1\ See 77 FR 
31240. EPA's May 25, 2012, proposed rulemaking covered Florida's March 
19, 2010, SIP submittal, as amended on August 31, 2010, as well as the 
State's April 13, 2012, draft amendment to the regional haze SIP 
submission. In a July 31, 2012, draft amendment to the regional haze 
SIP submission, Florida addressed the 18 reasonable progress units and 
11 facilities with BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) 
subject to EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR \2\) (a total of 20 
EGUs) that were not covered by Florida's April 13, 2012, draft 
amendment to the regional haze SIP submission. It also amended the SIP 
submission to remove Florida's reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART and 
reasonable progress requirements for the State's affected EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a separate action published on December 30, 2011 (76 FR 
82219), EPA proposed a limited disapproval of the Florida regional 
haze SIP, and on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a limited 
disapproval of the regional haze SIPs for several states, but 
deferred final action on the Florida regional haze SIP.
    \2\ On March 10, 2005, EPA issued CAIR, a rule which covers 27 
eastern states and the District of Columbia. The rule uses a cap and 
trade system to reduce SO2 and NOX from power 
plant emissions. For more information, go to: https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/resource/cair-resource.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida's September 17, 2012, final amendment to the regional haze 
SIP

[[Page 53252]]

submission consolidated its draft April 13, 2012, and draft July 31, 
2012, amendments to the regional haze SIP submission into a single 
package. On October 15, 2012, and on May 2, 2013, FDEP submitted 
supplemental information and documentation for Progress Energy's 
Crystal River facility. On November 29, 2012 (77 FR 71111), EPA 
finalized a full approval of the BART determinations addressed in the 
Agency's May 25, 2012, proposed rulemaking action. These BART 
determinations were submitted to EPA for parallel processing on April 
13, 2012, in a draft amendment to the regional haze SIP submission and 
submitted in final form on September 17, 2012.
    On December 10, 2012 (77 FR 73369), EPA proposed several actions 
related to regional haze requirements for Florida. First, EPA proposed 
to approve certain BART and reasonable progress determinations included 
in Florida's September 17, 2012, amendment to the regional haze SIP 
submission. Second, EPA proposed to find that the September 17, 2012, 
amendment to Florida's regional haze SIP submission corrects the 
deficiencies that led to the aforementioned proposed limited approval 
and limited disapproval actions. Third, EPA proposed to withdraw the 
previously proposed limited disapproval of Florida's entire regional 
haze SIP, and alternatively proposed full approval of the entire 
regional haze SIP.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is now finalizing full approval of all remaining portions of 
the Florida regional haze SIP as proposed on May 25, 2012, and December 
10, 2012, including the remaining BART and reasonable progress 
determinations in Florida's September 17, 2012, amendment to the 
regional haze SIP submission (as supplemented on October 15, 2012, and 
May 2, 2013) \3\ not previously addressed in EPA's November 29, 2012, 
final action.\4\ EPA finds that Florida's September 17, 2012, amendment 
to the regional haze SIP submission (as supplemented on October 15, 
2012, and May 2, 2013): (1) Replaces reliance on CAIR to satisfy the 
BART and reasonable progress requirements for its affected EGUs with 
case-by-case BART and reasonable progress control analyses; and (2) 
corrects the deficiencies that led to the December 30, 2011, proposed 
limited disapproval and the May 25, 2012, proposed limited approval of 
the State's regional haze SIP. Consequently, EPA finds that the 
regional haze SIP as a whole now meets the regional haze requirements 
of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On October 15, 2012, and on May 2, 2013, FDEP submitted 
supplemental information and documentation for Progress Energy's 
Crystal River facility. Additionally, FDEP submitted a letter to EPA 
dated July 30, 2013, in which it committed to provide EPA with a 
regional haze SIP revision no later than March 19, 2015, the 
deadline for the State's five-year regional haze periodic progress 
report, that will include a NOx BART emissions limit for Unit 1 
reflecting best operating practices for good combustion.
    \4\ Specifically, the BART determinations addressed by the 
November 29, 2012, action were: Tampa Electric Company-Big Bend 
Station (Units 1, 2, 3); City of Tallahassee-Purdom Generating 
Station (Unit 7); Florida Power & Light (FPL)-Port Everglades Power 
Plant (Units 3, 4); CEMEX; White Springs Agricultural Chemical-SR/SC 
Complex; City of Gainesville-Deerhaven Generating Station (Unit 3); 
City of Vero Beach-City of Vero Beach Municipal Utilities (Units 2, 
3, 4); FPL-Putnam Power Plant (Units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10); Lake 
Worth Utilities-Tom G. Smith (Units 6, 9); City of Tallahassee-Arvah 
B. Hopkins Generating Station (Unit 4); FPL-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); FPL-Cape 
Canaveral Power Plant (Units 1, 2); 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; Solutia Inc., Sterling Fibers, Inc.; U.S. Sugar 
Corp.-Bryant Mill; IMC Phosphates Company-Port Sutton Terminal; 
Georgia Pacific-Palatka; Smurfit-Stone-Fernandina Beach; Smurfit-
Stone-Panama City; Mosaic-New Wales; Mosaic-Riverview; and CF 
Industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received adverse comments on the May 25, 2012, proposed limited 
approval of Florida's regional haze SIP and on the December 10, 2012, 
proposed approval of certain BART and reasonable progress 
determinations. See Section III of this rulemaking for a summary of the 
comments received on EPA's May 25, 2012, and December 10, 2012, 
proposed actions and the Agency's responses to these comments. Detailed 
background information and EPA's rationale for the proposed actions are 
provided in EPA's May 25, 2012, and December 10, 2012, proposed 
rulemakings. See 77 FR 31240 and 77 FR 73369.

III. What is EPA's response to comments received on these actions?

    EPA received two sets of comments on its May 25, 2012, rulemaking 
proposing a limited approval of Florida's regional haze SIP submittals 
and seven sets of comments on its December 10, 2012, proposed approval 
described above. Specifically, the comments on the May 25, 2012, 
proposed rulemaking were received from the Sierra Club and National 
Parks Conservation Association, collectively, and from the Florida 
Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.-Environment Committee. One 
comment related to BART was addressed in the Agency's November 29, 
2012, final rulemaking. The remaining comments are addressed in this 
action. The seven sets of comments relating to the December 10, 2012, 
proposed rulemaking were received from Sierra Club, EarthJustice, and 
the National Parks Conservation Association, collectively; National 
Park Service (NPS); Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. -
Environment Committee; FPL Company; Progress Energy; Utility Air 
Regulatory Group; and numerous individual members of the Sierra Club. 
The complete comments provided by all of the aforementioned entities 
(hereinafter referred to as ``the Commenter'') are provided in the 
docket for today's final action (Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0935). A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided 
below.

A. Response to Comments on the May 25, 2012, Proposal

    Comment 1: The Commenter concludes that EPA cannot approve 
Florida's reasonable progress demonstration or long-term strategy (LTS) 
at this time because ``relevant portions of the SIP are incomplete in 
important regards'' and because the components of the SIP are 
``interdependent'' (i.e., regional haze SIPs are ``comprehensive 
documents which fully address haze through linked reasonable progress 
goals, an effective long-term strategy, BART requirements for 
appropriate sources, and robust monitoring, amongst other 
requirements''). The Commenter believes that EPA cannot approve the 
reasonable progress demonstration or LTS ``because the shift from CAIR 
to CSAPR [Cross State Air Pollution Rule] has fundamentally altered the 
SIP, and has required Florida to reanalyze significant portions of its 
SIP.'' The Commenter states that until such an analysis is complete, 
the SIP is missing critically important components. According to the 
Commenter, EPA cannot lawfully or rationally approve SIP provisions 
that rely on future revisions that Florida has not yet adopted or 
submitted to EPA or rely on CAIR to meet specific regional haze 
requirements when EPA has already ``taken action to disapprove that 
exact action.'' Without a complete reasonable progress demonstration, 
LTS, and supporting analyses, the Commenter believes that EPA approval 
of such SIP sections would be arbitrary and contrary to law.

[[Page 53253]]

    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's conclusions and is 
approving the reasonable progress demonstrations, reasonable progress 
goals (RPGs), and LTS set forth in Florida's regional haze SIP. The 
State has submitted a complete regional haze SIP that satisfies all CAA 
requirements, and EPA is taking final action today to approve Florida's 
entire regional haze SIP. When combined with EPA's November 29, 2012, 
final rulemaking approving several BART determinations, there are no 
outstanding regional haze SIP elements requiring action.
    Regarding the comments on the relationship between CAIR and the 
regional haze SIP, Florida set its RPGs based on modeled projections of 
future conditions that were developed using the best available 
information at the time the modeling analysis was performed. Given the 
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi) that states must take into 
account the visibility improvement that is expected to result from the 
implementation of other CAA requirements, Florida set its RPGs based, 
in part, on the emissions reductions expected to be achieved by CAIR 
and other measures being implemented across the southeast region as 
modeled for Florida by the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal 
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS).\5\ Although Florida no longer 
relies on CAIR to satisfy regional haze requirements for any sources 
within the State, the underlying emissions inventories and projections 
of reductions from upwind states continue to include assumptions based 
on the implementation of CAIR. As CAIR has been remanded by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit or 
Court), some of the assumptions underlying the development of this 
element of the RPGs may change. EPA has determined that this reliance 
on CAIR in upwind states in the underlying analysis does not require 
EPA to withhold full approval of Florida's regional haze SIP. The 2008 
remand of CAIR was followed by a 2012 decision in EME Homer City 
Generation, L.P. v. EPA (hereafter referred to as ``EME Homer City''), 
696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted 570 U.S. (June 24, 2013) 
(No. 12-1182), to vacate CSAPR and keep CAIR in place pending the 
promulgation of a valid replacement rule. In this unique circumstance, 
EPA believes that full approval of the SIP submission is appropriate. 
To the extent that Florida is relying on emissions reductions 
associated with the implementation of CAIR in other states in its 
regional haze SIP, the recent directive from the D.C. Circuit in EME 
Homer City ensures that the reductions associated with CAIR will be 
sufficiently permanent and enforceable for the first implementation 
period ending in 2018. EPA has been ordered by the court to develop a 
new rule and the opinion makes clear that after promulgating that new 
rule, EPA must provide states an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs 
to implement that rule. Thus, CAIR cannot be replaced until EPA has 
promulgated a final rule through a notice-and-comment rulemaking 
process, states have had an opportunity to draft and submit regional 
haze SIPs, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine if they can be 
approved, and EPA has taken action on the SIPs, including promulgating 
a Federal implementation plan, if appropriate. These steps alone will 
take many years, even with EPA and the states acting expeditiously. The 
Court's clear instruction to EPA that it must continue to administer 
CAIR until a ``valid replacement'' exists provides an additional 
backstop; by definition, any rule that replaces CAIR and meets the 
Court's direction would require upwind states to eliminate significant 
downwind contributions. Further, in vacating CSAPR and requiring EPA to 
continue administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that the 
consequences of vacating CAIR ``might be more severe now in light of 
the reliance interests accumulated over the intervening four years.'' 
EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated reliance interests 
include the interests of states who reasonably assumed they could rely 
on reductions associated with CAIR to meet certain regional haze 
requirements. For these reasons also, EPA believes it is appropriate to 
allow Florida to rely on reductions associated with CAIR in other 
states as sufficiently permanent and enforceable pending a valid 
replacement rule for purposes such as evaluating RPGs in the regional 
haze program. Following promulgation of the replacement rule, EPA will 
review regional haze SIPs as appropriate to identify whether there are 
any issues that need to be addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The VISTAS Regional Planning Organization (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes the Commenter overstates the overarching nature of the 
changes due to the CAIR remand. Many of the emissions units subject to 
reasonable progress analysis either have already reduced SO2 
emissions or will be reducing SO2 emissions in the near 
future. These reductions are the result of company decisions to shut-
down or re-power certain units or to install new control equipment 
(e.g., scrubbers) in response to CAIR. Furthermore, Florida has 
reviewed the facilities subject to BART or reasonable progress analysis 
on a case-by-case basis and has developed BART or reasonable progress 
requirements for the sources for which additional controls were 
appropriate. EPA expects these BART and reasonable progress 
requirements to provide benefits similar to or greater than those 
provided by CAIR. In fact, as Florida notes in its September 17, 2012, 
SIP amendment, EGU emissions in 2010 were already lower than the 
projected emissions for 2018 used in the State's RPG analysis. In 
addition, unlike the enforceable emissions limitations and other 
enforceable measures in the LTS, RPGs are not directly enforceable. See 
64 FR 35733; 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v). Because the projected 
SO2 emissions reductions are sufficient to meet the RPGs, 
and because actual emissions in 2010 have been shown to be lower than 
projected emissions for 2018, EPA is approving Florida's RPGs and LTS.
    As noted in the May 25, 2012, proposal, EPA believes that the five-
year progress report is the appropriate time to address any changes, if 
necessary, to the RPG demonstration and/or the LTS. EPA expects that 
this demonstration will address the impacts on the RPGs of any needed 
adjustments to the projected 2018 emissions due to updated information 
on the emissions for EGUs and other sources and source categories. If 
this assessment determines that an adjustment to Florida's regional 
haze SIP is necessary, EPA regulations require a SIP revision within a 
year of the five-year progress report. See 40 CFR 51.308(h)(4).
    Comment 2: The Commenter contends that EPA cannot approve Florida's 
RPGs in a manner consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 
because the Agency did not specifically state that it was proposing to 
approve the RPGs in the May 25, 2012, action.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the public was 
not provided adequate notice that the Agency was proposing approval of 
the RPGs included in Florida's regional haze SIP and that the public 
did not have a meaningful opportunity to comment on such a proposed 
approval. In the May 25, 2012, proposed rulemaking, EPA explicitly and

[[Page 53254]]

repeatedly stated that it proposed to grant limited approval to the 
State's March 19, 2010, August 31, 2010, and April 13, 2012, regional 
haze SIP submittals.\6\ See, e.g., 77 FR 31242, 31261. EPA described 
the content of these submittals in the action and included them in the 
docket. For example, in Section V.7 (77 FR 31259), entitled ``RPGs,'' 
EPA discussed the RPGs included in Florida's SIP subject to the 
rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA also stated that it would address the 18 reasonable 
progress units and 11 facilities with BART-eligible EGUs subject to 
CAIR (a total of 20 EGUs) that were not covered by Florida's April 
13, 2012, SIP submittal in a subsequent action. See, e.g., 77 FR 
31254, 31256.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the May 25, 2012, action, a limited approval results 
in approval of the entire SIP with regards to regional haze, even of 
those parts that are deficient, preventing EPA from granting a full 
approval.\7\ Because EPA identified the RPGs as part of Florida's 
regional haze SIP and stated that its proposed action would act as 
approval of Florida's entire regional haze SIP, the public was provided 
with adequate notice that EPA's action included approval of Florida's 
RPGs. Furthermore, in the December 10, 2012, action, EPA explicitly 
stated that it was proposing full approval of the entire regional haze 
SIP due to the changes made in Florida's September 17, 2012, final 
regional haze SIP amendment to address the deficiencies leading to the 
proposed limited approval and limited disapproval actions. It is not 
necessary or practical for EPA to single out every element of a SIP 
submission and expressly state that it is acting on each element when 
it proposes to act on the SIP submission as a whole. See, e.g., Tucker 
v. Atwood, 880 F.2d 1250, 1251 (11th Cir. 1989) (explaining that a 
rulemaking notice under Section 553(b) of the APA ``requires no more 
than `. . . a description of the subjects and issues involved.' ''); 
Lloyd Noland Hosp. & Clinic v. Heckler, 762 F.2d 1561, 1565 (11th Cir. 
1985) (noting that a rulemaking notice ``is adequate if `it affords 
interested parties a reasonable opportunity to participate in the 
rulemaking process.' ''); Forester v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, 559 
F.2d 774, 787 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (``Section 553(b) does not require that 
interested parties be provided precise notice of each aspect of the 
regulations eventually adopted. Rather, notice is sufficient if it 
affords interested parties a reasonable opportunity to participate in 
the rulemaking process.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 https://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf (see footnote 3, May 
25, 2012, 77 FR 31242).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's proposal to approve the RPGs is also evident through language 
in Section V.7 of the May 25, 2012, action stating that the modeling 
supporting the analysis of these RPGs is consistent with EPA guidance 
prior to the CAIR remand and that the RPGs for the Class I areas in 
Florida are based on modeled projections of future conditions that were 
developed using the best available information at the time the analysis 
was done. EPA also explained the requirements for a review of the 
reasonableness of this estimate as part of the mid-course review and 
notes that FDEP has committed to follow this process.
    In addition, the proposed limited SIP disapproval for Florida and 
other states (December 30, 2011, 76 FR 82219) referenced in Section I 
of the May 25, 2012, proposal action (77 FR 31242) was explicit that 
EPA was not proposing to disapprove the RPGs for 2018 and that EPA 
believed that the five-year progress report was the appropriate time to 
address any changes to the RPG demonstration and, if necessary, the 
LTS. See 76 FR 82229. For all of the reasons discussed above, EPA's 
intention to approve the RPGs for Florida was clear, unambiguous, and 
consistent with the requirements of the APA.
    Comment 3: The Commenter does not believe that EPA can approve 
Florida's RPGs because the State must re-evaluate its demonstration of 
reasonable progress based on concrete, definite reductions of 
visibility-impairing pollutants that result only from those programs 
and emissions limits that are legally in force. The Commenter states 
that there is no lawful or rational basis for assuming that the 
reasonable progress projected by Florida will occur because the State's 
RPGs rely on CAIR, ``a temporary program due to the CAIR remand.'' The 
Commenter also asserts that Florida's RPGs should be disapproved 
because they ``rely upon other control programs whose benefits are far 
from certain'' (e.g., Atlanta/Birmingham/Northern Kentucky 1997 8-hour 
ozone nonattainment area SIP; consent decrees for Tampa Electric, 
Virginia Electric and Power Company, and Gulf Power-Plant Crist; 
Industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)). The 
Commenter also takes issue with EPA's assertion that Florida may 
address any discrepancies between projected emissions and actual 
reductions in the five-year progress report and contends that the five-
year review of RPGs is not a lawful or rational basis for approving the 
SIP.
    Response 3: The technical information provided in the docket 
demonstrates that the emissions inventory in the SIP adequately 
reflects projected 2018 conditions and should be approved. In addition, 
EPA does not believe that the State's reliance on CAIR in developing 
its RPGs affects EPA's ability to approve these RPGs for the reasons 
discussed in the response to Comment 1. EPA does not expect that the 
other inventory differences like those alleged, even if they occur, 
would affect the adequacy of Florida's regional haze SIP. The RPGs are 
based on emissions estimates and modeling conducted by VISTAS for its 
10 member states, including Florida, which reflect Florida's best 
estimate of expected conditions in 2018 during the period that the 
initial March 19, 2010, regional haze SIP submittal was developed.
    Florida's 2018 projections are based on the State's technical 
analysis of the anticipated emissions rates and level of activity for 
EGUs, other point sources, non-point sources, on-road sources, and off-
road sources based on their emissions in the 2002 base year, 
considering growth and additional emissions controls to be in place and 
federally enforceable by 2018. The emissions inventory used in the 
regional haze technical analyses that was developed by VISTAS with 
assistance from Florida projected 2002 emissions (the latest region-
wide inventory available at the time the SIP submittal was being 
developed) and applied reductions expected from Federal and state 
regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility impairing 
pollutants NOX, particulate matter (PM), and SO2. 
It is expected that individual projections within a statewide inventory 
will vary from actual emissions over a 16-year period (i.e., 2002-2018 
for the first implementation period). For example, some facilities shut 
down whereas others expand operations. Furthermore, economic 
projections and population changes used to estimate growth often differ 
from actual events; new rules are modified, changing their expected 
effectiveness; and methodologies to estimate emissions improve, 
modifying emissions estimates.
    In the regional haze program, uncertainties associated with modeled 
emissions projections into the future are addressed through the 
requirement under the RHR to submit periodic progress reports in the 
form of a SIP revision. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires each 
state to submit a report every five years evaluating progress

[[Page 53255]]

toward the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area located in the state 
and for each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by 
emissions from within the state. To minimize the differences between 
projected emissions and what will actually occur at the end of the 
implementation period, the RHR requires that the five-year review 
address any expected significant differences due to changed 
circumstances from the initial projected emissions, provide updated 
expectations regarding emissions for the implementation period, and 
evaluate the impact of these differences on RPGs.
    The five-year review is a mechanism to assure that these expected 
differences between projected and actual emissions (in this case, for 
the year 2018) are considered and that their impact on the RPGs (in 
this case, for the year 2018) is evaluated. Despite the Commenter's 
claims to the contrary, the projections included in the SIP are still 
reasonably robust projections of emissions expected in 2018 and reflect 
a reasonable estimate of visibility conditions in 2018. EPA does not 
expect the five-year review will result in wholesale changes to 
emissions or visibility estimates and regards the regulatory process 
established in the RHR to be appropriate. The State's analysis of 
projected emissions and its reliance on these projections to establish 
its RPGs meets the requirements of the RHR and EPA guidance and 
adequately reflects the best estimate of expected ambient conditions in 
2018.
    Comment 4: The Commenter states that because the RPGs for Florida's 
Class I areas fail to meet uniform rate of progress (URP) projections 
for 2018 for two Class I areas, and ``barely meet URP for others,'' the 
RPGs are arbitrary and unlawful. The Commenter believes that without 
CAIR, or any other comprehensive SO2 control program, there 
is no rational basis for finding that Florida's RPGs and LTS will 
provide reasonable progress. The Commenter also states that Florida has 
not provided an explanation why it was reasonable for the State to fall 
short of the URP for the St. Marks Class I area (located in Florida) 
and the Okefenokee Class I area (located in Georgia) based upon the 
four reasonable progress factors and that EPA may not approve the RPGs 
until Florida provides such an explanation and has subjected it to 
notice and comment. The Commenter states that EPA and Florida lack 
factual support for the position that Florida is likely to do better 
than predicted once it makes final BART and reasonable progress 
determinations and that Florida's claims of progress illegally and 
irrationally rely on emissions reductions from the CAIR program. Even 
then, according to the Commenter, the plan fails to assure progress 
sufficient to achieve the URP at two Class I areas and just barely 
provides for such progress at others.
    Response 4: As stated in the proposal, 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 first implementation 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 flexibility in 
how they take these factors into consideration.
    Florida followed EPA guidance and the RHR in preparing its RPGs. 
The State projects that it will meet the URP at two of its Federal 
Class I areas and falls just 0.03 deciview (dv) short of the URP at St. 
Marks. Florida stated in its September 12, 2012, SIP submittal that 
many of the sources that were projected to reduce emissions due to CAIR 
have shut down or re-powered (providing greater reductions than 
projected from emissions controls). The State's SIP submittal also 
notes that the projected reductions from the Industrial Boiler MACT 
Rule and EPA's Utility Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule 
appear to be providing greater SO2 reductions than expected 
when they were evaluated and modeled for reasonable progress. With 
regard to Florida's assessment of CAIR sources, Florida has reviewed 
all the facilities subject to BART or reasonable progress analysis on a 
case-by-case basis and determined BART or reasonable progress 
requirements for the remaining sources for which additional controls 
were appropriate.
    EPA expects these BART and reasonable progress requirements to 
provide similar or greater benefits than CAIR. As noted in the 
September 17, 2012, Florida SIP submittal, emissions from Florida EGUs 
in 2010 were already below the emissions levels projected for 2018 
without these additional BART limitations. As Florida stated on page 
174 in its September 2012, SIP submittal, ``[t]hese modeling results 
were used to set the reasonable progress goals. Because not all 
expected reductions were included in the final modeling runs (due to 
timing of the runs to be complete in time for SIP submittals), 
reductions will likely be greater when all BART reductions and 
reasonable measures are taken into account.'' In summary, Florida 
believes that the RPGs remain valid and that no further assessment is 
necessary for this first implementation period and EPA agrees with this 
assessment.
    In addition, while SO2 reductions due to the original 
Industrial Boiler MACT Rule are included in the 2018 emissions 
projection, the revised Industrial Boiler MACT Rule is expected to 
result in even greater emissions reductions than those reductions 
previously accounted for and evaluated as part of the 2018 projections 
presented in the submittal. In summary, although the sources and 
control strategies evaluated as part of the VISTAS process result in a 
RPG that is 0.03 dv less than the URP projection, Florida asserts, and 
EPA agrees, that the emissions reductions resulting from existing 
regulations, plus additional reductions from the newly-promulgated 
Industrial Boiler MACT, will result in ``reasonable progress'' that 
meets or exceeds the URP in all of the Florida Class I areas.
    Comment 5: The Commenter contends that Florida must ``go beyond the 
uniform rate of progress analysis to evaluate whether greater progress 
than the uniform rate is reasonable'' and that the SIP is deficient 
because the State has not provided such an evaluation.
    Response 5: EPA affirmed in the RHR that the URP is not a 
``presumptive target.'' Rather, it is an analytical requirement for 
setting RPGs. See 64 FR 35731-32. If a state sets an RPG that provides 
a slower rate of visibility improvement than the URP, a state must 
demonstrate that the RPG is nonetheless reasonable and that it is 
unreasonable to meet the URP for the Class I area at issue. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(ii). The RHR does not require a state to evaluate whether 
it would be reasonable to set a RPG that would achieve greater 
visibility improvement than the URP. In determining RPGs for Florida's 
Class I areas, the State identified sources eligible for a reasonable 
progress control evaluation using certain selection criteria (also 
described in response to Comment 6 and at 77 FR 31251) and described 
those evaluations in its SIP.

[[Page 53256]]

Florida performed this reasonable progress evaluation in accordance 
with EPA regulations and guidance.
    Comment 6: The Commenter states that Florida's identification of 
sources to assess for reasonable progress is flawed and cannot be 
approved by EPA because the State selected sources for reasonable 
progress control based upon its assumption that CAIR would maintain 
reasonable progress towards visibility goals during the first 
implementation period (i.e., the Commenter believes that the State 
relied on CAIR to reduce the number of sources evaluated for reasonable 
progress controls). The Commenter also states that because Florida 
expected ``visibility in Class I areas to improve at or very near the 
nominal straight line path to the 2064 goal'' based on this assumption, 
it selected a ratio of source emissions (``Q'') divided by distance 
from a Class I area (``d'') of 50 as the threshold for reasonable 
progress evaluation (five times the nominal significance criteria) and 
that Florida narrowed the field further by eliminating units that emit 
less than 250 tons per year of SO2 and are more than 300 
kilometers (km) from a Class I area, ``leaving 16 of these very large 
sources unconsidered for RP controls.'' The Commenter states that 
Florida's approach, in CAIR's absence, now falls ``well short of the 
[RHR's] mandate that the state `consider major and minor stationary 
sources, mobile sources, and area sources' as it develops emissions 
limitations'' and to include all ``measures necessary to achieve the 
RPGs.'' The Commenter does not believe that EPA can approve Florida's 
approach unless the State can demonstrate that its methodology is 
warranted even in CAIR's absence and that, without CAIR in place, 
Florida acted arbitrarily in increasing the nominal significance 
criteria.
    According to the Commenter, the State must revise its Q/d threshold 
for its BART exemption modeling to ``rationally identify those sources 
which may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in one or more 
Class I areas.'' \8\ The Commenter also believes that Florida's 
approach was flawed because it was based solely on SO2 
emissions; the State's LTS should have also considered reducing 
NOX and NH3 emissions; sulfate emissions account 
for only 30-60 percent of the impairment at the Everglades Class I 
area; and Florida excluded all sources that commenced construction or 
submitted a complete application after August 30, 1999, from its 
reasonable progress review. Therefore, the Commenter believes that 
Florida arbitrarily ignored a large percentage of sources that emit 
visibility impairing pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Florida only used a Q/d threshold to identify sources 
subject to a reasonable progress analysis. EPA has assumed that the 
Commenter intended to refer to the reasonable progress analysis 
rather than to ``BART exemption modeling'' and has responded 
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 6: States are required to consider the improvement 
expected from existing CAA programs (such as CAIR for affected states) 
in setting their RPGs. Thus, Florida appropriately factored in the 
expected emissions reductions and resulting visibility improvement from 
the implementation of CAIR in setting its RPGs. However, the 
identification of the major sources in Florida contributing to 
visibility impairment and the necessary emissions reductions from these 
sources was not winnowed because of CAIR. As discussed below, Florida 
established and applied certain criteria to identify for a reasonable 
progress control evaluation the largest known sources of SO2 
having the potential to impair visibility in Class I areas. 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 URP 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 controls were reasonable.
    As discussed in EPA's May 25, 2012, proposal, Florida's assessment 
concluded that ammonium sulfate is the largest contributor to 
visibility impairment at the State's Class I areas as a whole. See 77 
FR 31250. For the Chassahowitzka and St. Marks Class I areas, these 
ammonium sulfate particles, resulting from SO2 emissions, 
contribute roughly 71 percent of the calculated light extinction on the 
haziest days, and in Everglades National Park, the ammonium sulfate 
contribution was 40 percent of the calculated light extinction on the 
haziest days (due to a greater relative influence from organic carbon). 
Visibility impairment at Everglades National Park is occasionally 
dominated by organic carbon emissions due to lower SO2 
emissions in South Florida and the park's greater distance from large 
continental SO2 emissions sources. However, controlling 
anthropogenic carbon emissions sources was determined not to be a 
viable strategy for improving visibility for the first implementation 
period because the organic carbon emissions are primarily biogenic in 
origin. Therefore, reduction of SO2 emissions would be the 
most effective means of reducing visibility impairment at Florida's 
Class I areas. Because over 85 percent of 2002 SO2 emissions 
in Florida were attributable to EGUs and industrial point sources, EPA 
considers Florida's decision to focus on SO2 emissions from 
these facilities as a reasonable application of EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program \9\ 
(EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the 
Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, memorandum from William L. 
Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA 
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (``EPA's Reasonable 
Progress Guidance''), located at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/reasonable_progress_guid071307.pdf,.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State then considered three variables that each play a strong 
role in determining the impact any source may have on a particular 
Class I area. The first variable is the amount of SO2 
emissions (the greater the emissions, the more likely a source may 
impact visibility); the second variable is distance to a Class I area 
(visibility impacts decrease as distance from a Class I area 
increases); and the third variable is frequency of winds (residence 
time) in the direction of the Class I area from the source (trajectory 
analysis). The VISTAS States considered a number of different 
combinations of these variables as a surrogate for visibility impact.
    The Commenter raises concerns relating to the Q/d threshold for 
BART exemption modeling in Florida. To clarify, the State used the Q/d 
metric as a threshold to identify those sources of SO2 
subject to a reasonable progress control evaluation, not for BART 
evaluations. Florida chose to develop a reasonable progress source-
selection metric based on Q/d that would be essentially equivalent to 
the VISTAS metric with several differences. Florida chose to use 2002 
emissions for Q, instead of the 2018 projections that VISTAS used in 
its suggested methodology for determining sources subject to a 
reasonable progress evaluation developed by its member states. Because 
the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) projected conversion of virtually 
all of the oil-fired boilers in Florida to natural gas, using 2018 
emissions estimates of SO2 from these

[[Page 53257]]

sources would have exempted these units from reasonable progress 
review. Thus, the approach Florida used was more likely to result in 
selection of certain larger SO2 sources for reasonable 
progress control analysis.
    As a general strategy, Florida did not want to base its selection 
of sources for a reasonable progress review on the IPM's prediction of 
how the CAIR market-based reductions will occur. Rather, Florida chose 
to use criteria that would include the known largest sources having the 
greatest potential to impair visibility and that would ensure that 
these sources are addressed through the reasonable progress process. 
Because the State was evaluating existing sources for additional 
control, rather than simply screening whether a proposed new facility 
warranted further evaluation, Florida chose a Q/d threshold equal to 50 
rather than 10 to assure that many of the largest sources of 
SO2 nearest the Class I areas were required to address 
reasonable progress, while smaller sources (not expected to provide 
significant, cost-effective reductions) were excluded. Similarly, 
Florida provided some bounds for the Q and d values. The State excluded 
small (< 250 tons per year) units because any reductions from theses 
sources would likely be small and not very cost-effective for the first 
implementation period. Also, Florida's decision to consider only 
sources within 300 km of a Class I area was consistent with the bounds 
used in the protocol developed by VISTAS, Protocol for the Application 
of the CALPUFF Model for Analyses of Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART),\10\ dated December 22, 2005, for the BART-exemption analysis. 
Finally, Florida only considered sources that commenced construction or 
submitted a complete application prior to August 30, 1999. This date 
was chosen because, under Florida's permit review process, all permits 
issued after that date require that visibility specifically be 
addressed. Hence, it is unlikely that additional cost-effective 
controls would be identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 2005 VISTAS protocol is located at: https://www.vistas-sesarm.org/BART/VISTASBARTModelingProtocol_Dec222005.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees that Florida's Q/d threshold must be revised. The 
guidance referenced by the Commenter is not directly relevant to the 
process developed by Florida for screening sources for a reasonable 
progress analysis during the first implementation period.\11\ This 
guidance, issued by the Federal Land Managers in 2010, refers to the 
initial screening test for new or modified sources subject to EPA's New 
Source Review (NSR) regulations to determine whether a visibility 
evaluation is necessary for these proposed new sources. This document 
is not part of the guidance developed by EPA or used by states to 
develop their long-term strategies for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work 
Group (FLAG), Phase I Report--Revised (2010) https://nature.nps.gov/air/pubs/pdf/flag/FLAG_2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance \12\ and discussed 
further in EPA's May 25, 2012, proposal action on the Florida regional 
haze SIP (77 FR 31250), the RHR gives states wide latitude to determine 
additional control requirements, and there are many ways to approach 
identifying additional reasonable measures as long as the four 
statutory factors are considered. Florida explained that its intent in 
choosing a Q/d threshold of 50 was to assure that many of the largest 
sources of SO2 that are closest to the Class I areas were 
required to address reasonable progress, while smaller sources (not 
expected to provide significant, cost-effective reductions in the first 
implementation period) were excluded. EPA finds this explanation to be 
reasonable. Florida also included a comparison between its methodology 
and the VISTAS methodology and demonstrated that the differences were 
minimal. For example, 15 units that were identified by the VISTAS 
methodology were exempted under Florida's method, but Florida also 
identified nine additional units for analysis that the VISTAS method 
would have excluded. Of the 15 units identified by the VISTAS 
methodology but excluded by the Florida methodology, nine have a Q/d of 
less than 17 and five others are BART-subject sources. EPA regards the 
Florida methodology as an acceptable approach for determining the 
sources that should be subject to a reasonable progress analysis for 
the first implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, page 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 7: The Commenter contends that EPA cannot approve Florida's 
reasonable progress control determinations as proposed because the 
State's reasonable progress analysis relies on CAIR or CSAPR. The 
Commenter believes that trading programs such as CAIR and CSAPR are not 
reliable guarantors of emissions controls under the regional haze 
program (incorporating by reference its February 28, 2012, comments on 
EPA's proposed rule to find that CSAPR is better than BART). The 
Commenter also states that EPA's analysis and approval of CSAPR as 
being better than BART does not validate the use of the CSAPR for 
reasonable progress as a matter of course and that such a determination 
must be made on a state-by-state basis, upon consideration of whether 
CSAPR assures reasonable progress or if further controls are required. 
Additionally, the Commenter does not believe that CSAPR can assure 
reasonable progress because CSAPR controls only ozone season 
NOX in Florida, while Florida has determined that the bulk 
of visibility impairment at its Class I areas is due to SO2 
emissions.
    Response 7: EPA addressed the Commenter's February 28, 2012, 
comments on CSAPR in its June 7, 2012, better-than-BART action (77 FR 
33642). Regarding the comments about a relationship between CAIR, 
CSAPR, and reasonable progress in Florida, see the response to Comment 
1. EPA did not propose in its May 25, 2012, action, and is not 
approving in this action, a conclusion that no additional controls for 
EGUs in Florida beyond CAIR or CSAPR are reasonable in the first 
implementation period. The State performed source-by-source analyses of 
the SO2 emissions control alternatives for the affected 
facilities and made case-by-case reasonable progress determinations for 
each of these sources. EPA is relying on these analyses to address 
reasonable progress requirements. The State has adequately justified 
focusing on SO2 emissions for its reasonable progress 
demonstration, as discussed in the response to Comment 6, and did not 
consider additional NOX reductions in its reasonable 
progress demonstration for this implementation period.
    Comment 8: The Commenter does not believe that EPA can approve 
Florida's exemption of JEA Northside Unit 27 from a reasonable progress 
analysis on the grounds that it took permit limits in 2009 to limit its 
SO2 emissions.\13\ The Commenter believes that Florida's 
exclusion of this facility from a reasonable progress analysis is 
arbitrary and inconsistent with the RHR because visibility impacts are 
measured based on a one-hour averaging time and the Commenter does not 
believe that these federally enforceable limits ensure that short-term 
visibility impacts are not experienced in the Okefenokee Class I area. 
The Commenter states that these permit limits must be modified to 
provide for a one-hour averaging time unless there is a ``reasoned and 
factually

[[Page 53258]]

supported explanation in the SIP as to why short-term visibility 
impacts will not occur despite the permit's relatively long averaging 
times.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The federally enforceable SO2 emissions 
limitations are 0.2 pound per million British Thermal Units (lb/
MMBtu) heat input, 24-hour average, and 0.15 lb/MMBtu heat input, 
30-day rolling average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 8: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that the 
differences in averaging time identified in the comment should affect 
the Agency's findings and conclusions for Northside Unit 27.'' The 
reasonable progress evaluation is performed for the 20 percent best and 
worst days. While EPA does assess Interagency Monitoring of Protected 
Visual Environments (``IMPROVE'') samples over a 24-hour time period 
(not hourly as stated by the Commenter), none of the visibility program 
requirements are based on these 24-hour peaks. Both the 20 percent best 
days and 20 percent worst days represent an average over one-fifth of 
monitored days of the year. Because this is a relatively long time 
period, it tends to ``smooth out'' any variations that would occur over 
a shorter time period. EPA finds no reason to believe that there is a 
need to address any potential short-term variations in emissions with a 
short-term emissions limit.
    Comment 9: The Commenter does not believe that EPA's May 25, 2012, 
proposal states the Agency's intentions with sufficient clarity or that 
EPA can approve SIP components that it has not clearly proposed to 
approve in the notice. According to the Commenter, EPA has not met the 
APA's notice and comment provisions governing rulemaking requiring that 
an agency clearly state what it is proposing so that members of the 
public have adequate notice and can offer informed comment. The 
Commenter provides two examples of instances where it believes that EPA 
has not clearly stated whether it is proposing approval or disapproval 
of a particular SIP component (i.e., RPGs and the reasonable progress 
demonstration).
    Response 9: As discussed in the response to Comment 2, EPA 
disagrees there was any ambiguity in its clearly stated intention in 
the May 25, 2012, proposed rulemaking action to grant limited approval 
to the March 19, 2010, August 31, 2010, and April 13, 2012, Florida 
regional haze SIP submittals and the Agency's position that the limited 
approval acted as approval of these SIP submittals in their entirety. 
EPA devoted significant text in the May 25, 2012, rulemaking notice to 
RPGs and the reasonable progress demonstrations, and included the three 
SIP submittals (subject to the proposed action) in the docket for 
public review. Because EPA identified the RPGs and reasonable progress 
demonstrations as part of the SIP, and stated that its proposed action 
would act as approval of the entire three regional haze SIP submittals, 
the public was provided with adequate notice that EPA's action included 
approval of Florida's RPGs and reasonable progress demonstrations. 
Furthermore, in the December 10, 2012, action, EPA explicitly stated 
that it was proposing full approval of the entire regional haze SIP due 
to the changes made in Florida's September 17, 2012, final regional 
haze SIP amendment to address the deficiencies leading to the proposed 
limited approval and limited disapproval actions.
    It is not necessary or practical for EPA to single out every 
element of a SIP submittal and expressly state that it is acting on 
each element when it proposes to act on the SIP as a whole. See, e.g., 
Tucker v. Atwood, 880 F.2d at 1251 (explaining that a rulemaking action 
under Section 553(b) of the APA ``requires no more than `. . . a 
description of the subjects and issues involved.' ''); Lloyd Noland 
Hosp. & Clinic v. Heckler, 762 F.2d at 1565 (noting that a rulemaking 
notice ``is adequate if `it affords interested parties a reasonable 
opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.' ''); Forester v. 
Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, 559 F.2d at 787 (``Section 553(b) does 
not require that interested parties be provided precise notice of each 
aspect of the regulations eventually adopted. Rather, notice is 
sufficient if it affords interested parties a reasonable opportunity to 
participate in the rulemaking process.'').
    Comment 10: The Commenter believes that it is improper for EPA to 
withhold full approval of Florida's regional haze SIP because CAIR is 
still in effect.
    Response 10: See the response to Comment 1. In this action, EPA is 
now fully approving Florida's regional haze SIP because the State has 
replaced its reliance on CAIR with source-specific emissions 
limitations to satisfy both the BART requirements and the requirement 
for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs.

B. Response to Comments on the December 10, 2012, Proposal

Lansing Smith
    Comment 11: The Commenter contends that FDEP improperly rejected 
wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) as BART for Units 1 and 2 at Lansing 
Smith. The Commenter states that it would be arbitrary and capricious 
for EPA to approve the BART determination because the analysis inflated 
the cost-effectiveness of wet FGD by using an emissions limit of 0.15 
lb/MMBtu of SO2 rather than the removal efficiency potential 
of 95 percent identified by Gulf Power and by not evaluating the most 
stringent control efficiency associated with wet FGD (asserted to be 98 
percent or greater). The Commenter also states that wet FGD is cost-
effective even using the ``flawed'' values provided in the SIP because 
Florida's values are ``still easily within the range which EPA has 
already determined to be cost-effective elsewhere'' and because they 
are lower than cost-effectiveness values associated with BART controls 
adopted by FDEP at FPL's Manatee power plant.
    Response 11: In evaluating the statutory BART factors for FGD, FDEP 
most heavily weighed the lack of visibility improvement associated with 
this control technology for Lansing Smith, not the cost of control. 
States have the flexibility to determine the weight and significance of 
each factor. See, e.g., 70 FR 39123, 39153, 39170 (July 6, 2005). As 
discussed in EPA's December 10, 2012, proposal, the model predicted 
limited visibility improvements considering both the absolute 
visibility benefits of FGD from the baseline as well as the incremental 
benefits from the use of FGD over dry sorbent injection (DSI). FDEP 
concluded that the predicted incremental improvements in visibility of 
0.07 dv for Unit 1 and 0.09 dv for Unit 2 for the 98th percentile 
highest day over three years were not sufficient in light of the costs 
to warrant the selection of FGD as BART, regardless of whether FGD is 
cost-effective on a dollars per ton basis.
    EPA agrees that if FDEP had assumed either a 95 percent or 98 
percent removal efficiency for wet FGD, then Florida's cost-
effectiveness values would have been slightly lower, while the modeled 
visibility improvement would have been slightly higher. As explained in 
EPA's BART Guidelines,\14\ however, sources evaluating post-combustion 
SO2 controls can consider a presumptive limit of either 95 
percent control or 0.15 lb/MMBtu when performing a five-factor BART 
analysis.\15\ Therefore, while FDEP could have used a higher removal 
efficiency in evaluating wet FGD, EPA believes that it was reasonable 
for FDEP to conduct its analysis using an emissions limit of 0.15 lb/
MMBtu. Moreover, even had FDEP used a higher removal efficiency, the 
incremental visibility improvement expected from wet FGD over DSI would

[[Page 53259]]

not have increased sufficiently to render FDEP's conclusion 
unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze 
Rule (``BART Guidelines''), 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y.
    \15\ 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, IV.E.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 12: The Commenter states that the visibility benefits 
associated with wet FGD are significant and that it is therefore 
inappropriate for EPA to dismiss these improvements. The Commenter 
concludes that EPA has overemphasized the incremental visibility 
improvements between wet FGD and DSI rather than evaluating the overall 
improvement associated with wet FGD and that it is improper for EPA to 
disregard the incremental improvements on the basis that they are less 
than 0.5 dv. The Commenter also concludes that EPA must consider the 
visibility improvement from wet FGD in relation to the statutory goal 
of eliminating visibility impairment. According to the Commenter, the 
improvement associated with wet FGD is ``significant'' in light of the 
0.244 dv annual rate of progress required to achieve the national goal 
at the St. Marks Class I area and because the State is ``already 
falling short of the uniform rate of progress required to restore 
visibility by 2064'' at this Class I area. The Commenter further states 
that it would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to reject wet FGD 
based on incremental visibility values when the incremental benefits 
from wet FGD are greater than the incremental visibility improvement 
between DSI and the switch to lower sulfur coal.
    Response 12: See the response to Comment 11. FDEP did not summarily 
disregard wet FGD using a 0.5 dv threshold. FDEP evaluated the 
visibility improvements associated with wet FGD for Lansing Smith under 
a five-factor BART analysis and concluded that these improvements were 
minimal and did not warrant the selection of wet FGD as BART for the 
facility. The State has flexibility to weigh the five factors. See 70 
FR 39170 (July 6, 2005). As discussed in Florida's regional haze SIP, 
FDEP does not believe that St. Marks will fall short of the URP target 
in light of the additional BART and reasonable progress measures added 
to the regional haze SIP after the modeling of reasonable progress was 
conducted and the retirement and conversion to natural gas of several 
EGUs. Moreover, states need not consider the URP at a specific Class I 
area in determining whether the visibility benefits associated with a 
given control option warrant its selection as BART. The URP is a metric 
that states use in setting their RPGs. A state's RPGs, in turn, need 
not be met by requiring the most stringent control technology at a 
single source, but rather can be met with a variety of control options 
and strategies that apply to various sources throughout the state. 
Here, EPA concurs with FDEP's assessment that the incremental 
visibility improvements associated with wet FGD at Lansing Smith are 
insufficient to warrant the technology's selection as BART.
    Comment 13: The Commenter argues that the energy and non-air 
quality issues cited by FDEP (e.g., four megawatt (MW) power penalty, 
generation of scrubber waste) are immaterial and not sufficient to 
reject wet FGD as BART.
    Response 13: FDEP included an evaluation of the energy and non-air 
quality impacts associated with wet FGD for completeness because these 
impacts are, collectively, one of the five statutory factors to be 
considered in a BART determination. This factor was not determinative 
in this instance because FDEP concluded that the visibility impacts 
associated with wet FGD for Lansing Smith did not warrant selection of 
this control technology as BART for the facility.
    Comment 14: The Commenter contends that FDEP improperly rejected 
dry FGD as BART for Units 1 and 2 because the State did not fully 
consider the technology or provide any evidence supporting its cost and 
control efficiency claims that a full analysis is not required based on 
FDEP's determination that dry FGD is more expensive than wet FGD and 
has the same or lower control efficiency. The Commenter asserts that 
dry FGD is technically feasible and can achieve control efficiencies of 
up to 98 percent removal. The Commenter also claims that it would be 
arbitrary and capricious for EPA to approve FDEP's rejection of dry FGD 
at Lansing Smith because the State approved the technology as BART at 
Crystal River.
    Response 14: See the response to Comment 11. EPA's BART Guidelines 
provide that in identifying control options, states must identify the 
most stringent option and a reasonable set of options for analysis that 
reflects a comprehensive list of available technologies.\16\ It is not 
necessary to list all permutations of available control levels that 
exist for a given technology. The BART Guidelines also state that a 
``possible outcome of the BART procedures discussed in these guidelines 
is the evaluation of multiple control technology alternatives which 
result in essentially equivalent emissions. It is not our intent to 
encourage evaluation of unnecessarily large numbers of control 
alternatives for every emissions unit. Consequently, you should use 
judgment in deciding on those alternatives for which you should conduct 
detailed impacts analyses. . . . For example, if two or more control 
techniques result in control levels that are essentially identical, 
considering the uncertainties of emissions factors and other parameters 
pertinent to estimating performance, you may evaluate only the less 
costly of these options.'' \17\ EPA does not regard the differences in 
removal efficiency or cost between wet FGD and dry FGD to be sufficient 
in this instance to warrant an independent assessment of dry FGD as 
BART for Lansing Smith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, IV.D, n.12.
    \17\ 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, IV.D.2, item 5 under the heading 
``What type of demonstration is required if I conclude that an 
option is not technically feasible?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 15: The Commenter believes that FDEP's use of a 0.15 lb/
MMBtu emissions limit underestimates the visibility benefits from a FGD 
system because it is equivalent to 89 percent control. The Commenter 
alleges that a control efficiency of 95 percent or 98 percent is 
achievable.
    Response 15: See response to Comment 11. Changing the 
SO2 control rate to the level suggested by the Commenter 
would not sufficiently alter the results of the modeling analysis for 
Lansing Smith to change the conclusion reached by FDEP. Furthermore, 
FDEP appropriately modeled FGD assuming a maximum allowable emissions 
rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. The actual percent reduction associated with 
this limit varies depending on the sulfur content of the coal burned. 
Different assumptions regarding the sulfur content of future coal used 
would result in different estimates of the emissions rate. For example, 
although the 0.15 lb/MMBtu rate results in an approximately 89.5 
percent reduction from baseline emissions on an annual basis, it 
results in 93 and 91.5 percent reductions at Units 1 and 2, 
respectively, on the maximum actual short-term (24-hour) basis used in 
the baseline visibility assessment. Finally, it is also important to 
note that the 0.15 lb/MMBtu limit also takes into account emissions 
from startup, shutdown, and malfunction because the BART limit must be 
met on a continuous basis.
    Comment 16: The Commenter believes that FDEP underestimated the 
visibility improvement associated with wet FGD, thereby making it less 
cost-effective, by only estimating Lansing Smith's visibility impacts 
on St. Marks, the only Class I area within 300 km of the facility. The 
Commenter states that EPA must consider CALPUFF modeling results from 
Federal Class I areas

[[Page 53260]]

beyond 300 km and the cumulative visibility impacts across these 
multiple areas. The Commenter cites to a May 2012 report entitled 
``Long Range Transport Models Using Tracer Field Experiment Data'' in 
support of its position that changes to CALPUFF since the publication 
of the 1998 Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 
2 guidance requires consideration of visibility impacts beyond 300 km. 
The Commenter also contends that a rough analysis based on the 
visibility impacts for St. Marks using linear and simple Gaussian 
dispersion assumptions reveals that the impacts at Class I areas other 
than St. Marks may be significant.
    Response 16: As a general matter, EPA agrees that Florida should 
have considered the visibility improvements at all affected Class I 
areas in its BART visibility assessments. For the Lansing Smith BART 
analysis, Florida modeled visibility impacts at St. Marks, the only 
mandatory Class I Federal area within the surrounding 300 km CALPUFF 
modeling domain used by FDEP to assess visibility impacts. FDEP 
conducted the visibility modeling consistent with the modeling protocol 
that VISTAS developed for preparing BART analyses entitled Protocol for 
the Application of the CALPUFF Model for Analyses of Best Available 
Retrofit Technology (BART). (See appendix L of the Florida regional 
haze SIP submittal). This modeling protocol was developed in a 
transparent manner involving states, EPA, NPS, Fish & Wildlife Service 
(FWS), and any other interested entities that wished to participate in 
the public process. The protocol establishes 300 km as the boundary 
around a BART-subject source in which to model potential visibility 
impacts at Class I areas, and consistent with this protocol, FDEP 
modeled the highest visibility impact from the nearby Class I areas 
within a 300 km radius of the source. As noted above, there are no 
Class I areas other than the St. Marks area within the 300 km boundary 
around Lansing Smith's BART-subject units.
    EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that changes to 
CALPUFF now support modeling at distances greater than 300 km. The 
Commenter cited a May 2012 technical evaluation (Documentation of the 
Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long Range Transport Models Using 
Tracer Field Experiment Data \18\) that evaluates several long range 
transport models based on several tracer studies. The report cited by 
the Commenter does not refute the IWAQM Phase 2 report which states 
that ``IWAQM recommends use of CALPUFF for transport distances of order 
200 km and less. Use of CALPUFF for characterizing transport beyond 200 
to 300 km should be done cautiously with an awareness of the likely 
problems involved.'' \19\ In fact, the May 2012 report further 
``emphasizes the need for a standardized set of options for regulatory 
CALPUFF modeling.'' \20\ Given these findings, EPA does not agree, as 
the Commenter asserts, that it must consider CALPUFF modeling results 
from Federal Class I areas beyond 300 km. EPA therefore believes that 
the results of CALPUFF modeling beyond 300 km of the source should be 
evaluated in light of the limitations discussed in the two guidance 
documents cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ https://www.epa.gov/scram001/reports/EPA-454_R-12-003.pdf.
    \19\ https://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/calpuff/phase2.pdf, 
page 18.
    \20\ https://www.epa.gov/scram001/reports/EPA-454_R-12-003.pdf, 
page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as discussed in the response to Comment 11, FDEP concluded 
that the predicted incremental improvements in visibility of 0.07 dv 
for Unit 1 and 0.09 dv for Unit 2 for the 98th percentile day at St. 
Marks were not sufficient to warrant the selection of FGD as BART. The 
visibility improvements associated with FGD for the Class I areas 
outside of the 300 km area are expected to be even lower than those 
modeled for St. Marks. EPA does not believe that, even had impacts at 
Class I areas beyond 300 km been modeled, the visibility benefits of 
wet FGD across all Class I areas would be sufficient to make FDEP's 
SO2 BART determination for Lansing Smith unreasonable. The 
Commenter estimates visibility impacts based on ``linear and simple 
Gaussian dispersion assumptions,'' but did not provide any further 
information on how it developed these estimates or how EPA should 
consider them.
    Comment 17: The Commenter states that EPA cannot approve the wet 
FGD BART analysis without further explanation from FDEP because Gulf 
Power provided emissions data for 2003-2005, while it modeled the 
visibility impacts of these emissions based on meteorological data from 
2001-2003.
    Response 17: FDEP chose 2001-2003 as its baseline period. It is not 
necessary to match the years of meteorology with the years of emissions 
in a BART analysis as long as both sets of data are representative. EPA 
guidance states that the ``emissions estimates used in the models are 
intended to reflect steady-state operating conditions during periods of 
high capacity utilization.'' \21\ Concerning the choice of an alternate 
period for the emissions data, EPA has reviewed the SO2 
emissions data for the Lansing Smith power plant in the EPA Clean Air 
Markets Division (CAMD) database \22\ for the 2000-2005 period. EPA 
found that the 2002 SO2 emissions from Lansing Smith were 
lower than the SO2 emissions for any other year in this 
period and are not representative of steady-state operating conditions 
during periods of high capacity utilization. The SO2 
emissions from 2003-2005 appear to be the most representative three-
year period in this time frame and EPA supports the State's use of this 
more representative data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, III.A.3, Option 1.
    \22\ https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 18: The Commenter states that EPA cannot approve FDEP's 
rejection of wet FGD as BART without a more thorough review of the cost 
analysis. According to the Commenter: (1) The analysis is based on un-
sourced and potentially biased data from an entity within Gulf Power's 
parent company; (2) the data underlying the control effectiveness 
estimates is not publicly available; (3) the cost estimates likely do 
not follow the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (``EPA Control 
Cost Manual''); \23\ and (4) the assumptions regarding a seven percent 
interest rate and 20-year scrubber lifetime are inappropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ https://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 18: EPA reviewed the cost estimates provided by Gulf Power 
and found that they are consistent with those resulting from 
application of EPA's Control Cost Manual. Appendix I of the Florida 
regional haze SIP submittal describes how members of the public can 
obtain access to the data underlying the cost analysis. EPA believes 
that Florida has adequately addressed data access and that the State's 
cost analysis is consistent with the BART Guidelines. The seven percent 
interest rate used by FDEP is consistent with EPA's Control Cost Manual 
and guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget (Circular 
A-94). Furthermore, adjusting the scrubber lifetime from 20 to 30 years 
would affect the cost analysis only by approximately 10 to 11 percent. 
Decreasing the estimated cost of FGD by 10 percent would not make 
FDEP's conclusion that wet FGD is not SO2 BART for Lansing 
Smith unreasonable given the minimal incremental visibility 
improvements associated with this technology at this facility.
    Comment 19: The Commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve the PM 
BART

[[Page 53261]]

limit of 0.1 lb/MMBtu for Lansing Smith, which is the existing limit in 
the facility's title V permit, without considering lowering the limit 
to reflect the most stringent emissions control level that the 
facility's electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are capable of achieving. 
The Commenter claims that it would be an arbitrary and capricious 
action for EPA to approve this limit as PM BART because the existing 
ESPs achieve emissions rates of 0.014 and 0.015 lb/MMBtu.
    Response 19: In its BART analysis, FDEP evaluated actual PM 
emissions from Units 1 and 2 with current controls (high efficiency 
hot- and cold-side ESPs), the impact of these emissions on visibility 
at St. Marks, existing permit conditions, and the visibility 
improvement associated with reducing the PM limits beyond the 
facility's actual emissions. In assessing impacts due to PM emissions 
at St. Marks, FDEP reviewed historic PM emissions from Units 1 and 2 
and established a baseline filterable PM10 emissions rate of 
47.9 lb PM/hour, equal to approximately 0.025 lb/MMBtu for Unit 1 and 
0.021 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2, derived from the highest stack test for the 
three-year period of 2003-2005 combined with maximum heat input. FDEP 
modeled visibility impairment using this baseline and calculated an 
impact at St. Marks due to PM emissions from Units 1 and 2 of 
approximately 0.02 dv, equal to 1.3 percent of the total baseline 
impact. FDEP also evaluated fabric filters as a possible BART control 
option, which would reduce PM emissions to a rate of 0.008 lb/MMBtu, 
and found that reducing PM emissions beyond the baseline emissions rate 
would result in a visibility improvement of 0.00 dv at St. Marks.
    While the existing permit limit of 0.1 lb/MMBtu is above actual 
controlled emissions levels and FDEP arguably should have tightened the 
limit to reflect the capabilities of the existing ESPs, EPA believes 
that FDEP's decision not to tighten the limit was reasonable for 
several reasons. First, the impact of tightening Lansing Smith's PM 
emissions limit would be minimal from a visibility perspective. Second, 
Lansing Smith's current operating permit does not authorize the 
facility to increase PM emissions beyond the actual controlled levels 
when the facility installs DSI for SO2 BART. EPA notes that 
Lansing Smith must submit a comparison of baseline actual emissions to 
future actual emissions once a final design is available for the 
installation of DSI at the facility. This comparison should be 
available in early 2015. At that time, FDEP will need to determine 
whether the installation of DSI will cause a significant increase in 
the facility's PM emissions, thereby triggering PSD review. Third, MATS 
was promulgated on April 24, 2013, (78 FR 24073) for existing sources 
and will further limit PM emissions from Units 1 and 2 to 0.03 lb/MMBtu 
by 2015. For these reasons, EPA believes that the existing permit limit 
of 0.1 lb/MMBtu for Units 1 and 2 at Lansing Smith is adequate for PM 
BART at this time. However, EPA expects FDEP to review the PM emissions 
limit in the next regional haze implementation period, at which time 
the PM impacts, if any, from the operation of DSI for SO2 
BART will be clear.
    Comment 20: The Commenter claims that the modeling files have not 
been made available and that EPA cannot evaluate or approve the BART 
determinations for the Lansing Smith facility without this information. 
The Commenter requests that EPA obtain the modeling files, evaluate 
them for consistency with the BART Guidelines and Control Cost Manual, 
and provide them for public review and comment.
    Response 20: Appendix I of the Florida regional haze SIP submittal 
describes how members of the public can obtain access to the modeling 
files. It also states that the raw meteorological, emissions, and air 
quality modeling input and output datasets will in many cases surpass 
any practical file size for online storage or downloading. EPA has 
accessed the data in this manner and reviewed the appropriate files. 
EPA believes that Florida has adequately addressed data access and that 
the State's visibility modeling for Lansing Smith is consistent with 
the BART Guidelines. The EPA Control Cost Manual is not relevant to 
visibility modeling.
Crystal River
    Comment 21: The Commenter notes that under Option 1 (shutdown), the 
underlying BART analysis does not consider the use of DSI as an interim 
control for SO2. The Commenter believes that an analysis of 
this control is required before EPA can approve the proposed BART 
determination.
    Response 21: EPA has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of DSI under 
the shutdown option and concludes that, although FDEP should have 
evaluated DSI as a possible interim BART control option, DSI would not 
be cost-effective.\24\ EPA estimates that DSI would result in 
approximately $46,000,000 in capital costs and $54,000,000 in annual 
operating costs at the Crystal River facility, not including expenses 
for any necessary upgrades to the ESPs due to the increased loading 
from the DSI system or the potential costs due to local retrofit 
constraints.\25\ Allowing time for permit approvals, engineering, 
construction, and installation, and assuming that DSI could be fully 
operational by the end of 2017 under an expeditious schedule, DSI would 
be in operation for approximately three years before the units would be 
shut down at the end of 2020. At an expected control efficiency of 50 
percent, EPA estimates that the annual SO2 reduction would 
be 4,644 tons from Unit 1 and 5,912 tons from Unit 2 at a cost-
effectiveness of $6,897/ton and $6,943/ton of SO2 removed, 
respectively.\26\ EPA also evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 
operating DSI for five years rather than three, but still found that 
the cost-effectiveness values would exceed $6,000/ton. Therefore, EPA 
concurs with FDEP's SO2 BART determination for Crystal River 
because the cost-effectiveness of DSI is higher than what EPA or 
Florida has considered to be BART in other BART determinations 
selecting DSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ EPA notes that although two Commenters submitted comments 
on the state rulemaking for this BART determination, neither 
identified DSI as an option for FDEP to consider in its BART 
analysis.
    \25\ IPM Model--Revisions to Cost and Performance for APC 
Technologies, Dry Sorbent Injection Cost Development Methodology, 
Sargent & Lundy LLC, August 2010. https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/docs/append5_4.pdf.
    \26\ To view EPA's calculations to support these figures, please 
refer to ``Crystal River DSI Cost Analysis'' in the docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 22: The Commenter does not believe that EPA can approve 
Option 2 of the Crystal River BART determination because of alleged 
inadequacies in the BART analyses that resulted in BART determinations 
for SO2, PM, and NOX with emissions limits that 
were less stringent than the Commenter considered appropriate as BART 
for this facility.
    Response 22: On May 2, 2013, FDEP supplemented Florida's regional 
haze SIP with an April 30, 2013, letter from Duke Energy (formerly 
known as Progress Energy) notifying FDEP of the Company's binding 
decision to pursue Option 1 under the Crystal River BART construction 
permit and shut down Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2020. Pursuant to 
the construction permit, which was incorporated into Florida's regional 
haze SIP, Duke Energy's binding determination renders Option 2 and the 
corresponding permit provisions allowing for the implementation of 
Option 2 void. Today's final action approving Florida's regional haze 
SIP makes this shutdown

[[Page 53262]]

requirement federally enforceable. Hence, EPA regards any comments on 
Option 2 to be moot.
    Comment 23: The Commenter recommends that selective non-catalytic 
reduction (SNCR) be re-evaluated as an interim control under Option 1 
based on its contention that the technology can be installed in much 
less than five years, thus improving its cost-effectiveness by 
increasing its useful life.
    Response 23: EPA does not believe that SNCR would be cost-effective 
as an interim control on Units 1 and 2 given the remaining useful life 
of this facility. Although EPA disagrees with FDEP's conclusion that 
SNCR is not a demonstrated technology for boilers of this size, it does 
concur with FDEP that detailed engineering and site-specific 
assessments would be necessary to design and install SNCR given the 
nature of the units and that these assessments could take substantial 
additional time to complete. Compared with smaller coal-fired boilers, 
the engineering design for Units 1 and 2 would require consideration of 
the limited access to temperature regions in the boiler, greater 
variations in combustion temperatures, longer distances over which 
reagent must be delivered and mixed, and increased ammonia slip due to 
less optimal use of reagent. Even if FDEP had evaluated SNCR as an 
interim measure and determined that SNCR was technically feasible, this 
facility would likely have had until mid-2018 under the Florida BART 
rule \27\ to begin operating a SNCR system, which would then have 
ceased operation by no later than 2020 when the facility shut down. 
Thus, the limited remaining useful life of this facility makes the 
application of SNCR as an interim control option not practicable for 
Units 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Florida Admin. Code 62-296.340, ``Best Available Retrofit 
Technology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 24: The Commenter does not believe that EPA can approve 
Florida's regional haze SIP until FDEP considers the visibility impacts 
of Crystal River's NOX emissions on Class I areas other than 
Chassahowitzka, the nearest Class I area.
    Response 24: No further visibility analysis is required for Crystal 
River because Duke Energy must now shut down Units 1 and 2 by December 
31, 2020. EPA agrees that Florida should have considered the visibility 
improvements at all affected Class I areas in its BART visibility 
assessments under Option 1; however, EPA does not believe that doing so 
would have altered the outcome given the limited remaining useful life 
of the facility.
Lakeland Electric C.D. McIntosh Jr.
    Comment 25: The Commenter believes that the visibility modeling for 
Lakeland Electric's C.D. McIntosh Jr. (McIntosh) facility should have 
considered cumulative visibility impacts from Everglades National Park, 
Okefenokee, and Chassahowitzka.
    Response 25: As a general matter, EPA agrees that Florida should 
have considered the visibility improvements at all affected Class I 
areas in its BART visibility assessments. For the McIntosh BART 
analysis, Florida modeled visibility impacts at Chassahowitzka, the 
nearest Class I area to the facility, as well as at Everglades National 
Park and Okefenokee, the other mandatory Class I Federal areas within 
the surrounding 300 km CALPUFF modeling domain used by FDEP. FDEP 
conducted the visibility modeling consistent with the modeling protocol 
that VISTAS developed for preparing BART analyses entitled Protocol for 
the Application of the CALPUFF Model for Analyses of Best Available 
Retrofit Technology (BART). (See appendix L of the Florida regional 
haze SIP submittal.) This modeling protocol was developed in a 
transparent manner involving states, EPA, NPS, FWS, and any other 
interested entities that wished to participate in the public process. 
The protocol establishes 300 km as the boundary around a BART-subject 
source in which to model potential visibility impacts at Class I areas, 
and consistent with this protocol, FDEP modeled the highest visibility 
impact from the three Class I areas within a 300 km radius of the 
source.
    While FDEP should have considered the visibility improvement at 
Everglades and Okefenokee when conducting its BART analyses for 
McIntosh, EPA does not believe that FDEP not doing so has rendered its 
BART determinations unreasonable. As discussed in more detail in the 
responses below, FDEP rejected several SO2 BART options 
based on excessive cost, not visibility improvement. Moreover, while 
FDEP did eliminate several NOX BART options based on low 
visibility improvement, those values were so low that EPA does not 
believe that a consideration of cumulative impacts would alter the 
reasonableness of FDEP's conclusions, especially in light of the fact 
that the baseline visibility impacts for the 98th percentile most 
impacted day at Everglades and Okefenokee were only 31 percent and 27 
percent, respectively, of those at Chassahowitzka.
    Comment 26: EPA received several comments regarding the adequacy of 
the NOX BART analysis for Units 1 and 2 at McIntosh. 
According to the Commenter, EPA cannot approve the BART determination 
without: (1) Fully evaluating SNCR as a retrofit technology for Unit 2; 
(2) considering additional available retrofit control technologies such 
as low NOX burners, overfire air systems, and flue gas 
recirculation for Unit 1; (3) setting a NOX emissions limit 
for Unit 1; (4) demonstrating why a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 
control efficiency greater than 80 percent is not achievable; and (5) 
calculating the cost-effectiveness of SCR for each individual unit. The 
Commenter also states that even the incorrect cost-effectiveness values 
calculated for SCR fall within the range of acceptable values and that 
SCR should therefore have been selected as BART.
    Response 26: Regarding a SNCR evaluation for Unit 2, this unit 
already has combustion controls in place (flue gas recirculation), 
lowering its worst case 24-hour NOX emission rate \28\ to 
approximately 0.22 lb/MMBtu, comparable to what can be achieved with 
SNCR for this unit. In addition, the technical feasibility of 
installing SNCR on these units is uncertain because an engineering 
study would need to be undertaken to ascertain whether the units 
operate within the temperature range required by SNCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ This emissions rate reflects the maximum daily actual 
emissions from 2001-2003 for Unit 2 used in Florida's CALPUFF 
modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the Commenter's remaining concerns for Units 1 and 
2, the BART modeling for Units 1 and 2 predicted a total visibility 
impact of 0.31 dv at Chassowitzka from their combined NOX 
emissions and a visibility impact of approximately 0.20 dv from the 
NOX emissions at Unit 1.\29\ Moreover, EPA reviewed the 
operations of Unit 1 and concluded that the modeling based on 2001 to 
2003 emissions was sufficiently conservative compared to present 
operations. Unit 1 emitted a total of 12.3 tons of NOX from 
2009 through 2012, according to EPA's CAMD database, whereas the 
baseline BART modeling assumed that Unit 1 emitted 2,119 tons of 
NOX per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The BART modeling estimates the maximum eighth highest 
visibility impact at Chassahowitzka from the emissions from these 
units over the baseline period to be 1.617 dv with a NOX 
contribution of approximately 0.31 dv. See Exhibit 2 of the Florida 
regional haze submittal, page 416. Unit 1 contributes approximately 
two-thirds of the total NOX emissions from these units. 
See Exhibit 2 of the Florida regional haze submittal, page 415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDEP placed greater weight on the lack of potential visibility 
improvement from controlling NOX at Units 1 and 2 than the 
other statutory factors due to

[[Page 53263]]

the modeling results described above and concluded that no additional 
controls were required to satisfy NOX BART and that no 
adjustment to the existing permits were warranted. Furthermore, because 
the available controls (low NOX burners, flue gas 
recirculation, and SNCR) for Unit 1 would only reduce the visibility 
impacts by 25 to 50 percent, the anticipated improvement from these 
controls would be as low as 0.05 to 0.1 dv assuming 2001-2003 emission 
levels. Under the same logic, adjusting the control efficiency of the 
modeled SCR system from 80 to 90 percent or calculating the cost-
effectiveness individually for each unit would not change the fact that 
the visibility improvement associated with the installation of 
NOX controls would remain low.
    Regarding a NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1, the RHR 
does require an emissions limit for each visibility-impairing pollutant 
at each BART-subject source. FDEP submitted a letter to EPA dated July 
30, 2013, in which it committed to provide EPA with a regional haze SIP 
revision no later than March 19, 2015, the deadline for the State's 
five-year regional haze periodic progress report, that will include a 
NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 reflecting best 
operating practices for good combustion. The State also committed to 
modify the title V operating permit for the facility by March 19, 2015, 
to include this limit. The limit will be effective no later than the 
effective date of EPA's approval of the SIP revision. Because of the 
limited visibility impact of NOX emissions from Unit 1 and 
because the BART limit will reflect the existing level of control, EPA 
concludes that it is reasonable for the State to implement a 
NOX BART emissions limit for Unit 1 upon EPA's approval of 
the aforementioned SIP revision. Under these unique circumstances, EPA 
concludes that FDEP's NOX BART determination for the 
McIntosh facility was ultimately reasonable. The major visibility-
impairing pollutant of concern at this source, SO2, has been 
addressed, and the delay in establishing a NOX BART 
emissions limit for Unit 1 will have no appreciable impact on 
visibility at any Class I area.
    Comment 27: The Commenter alleges that FDEP overestimated the costs 
and underestimated the visibility benefits of reducing fuel oil sulfur 
content in its SO2 BART analysis for McIntosh and submitted 
an analysis evaluating the visibility benefits of reducing the fuel oil 
sulfur content and associated costs. According to the Commenter, FDEP 
should have included the visibility improvements at Everglades National 
Park and Okefenokee Wilderness Area associated with the 0.7 percent 
sulfur fuel evaluation and should not have used the 2001-2003 baseline 
period to estimate heat inputs and fuel costs.
    Response 27: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. With respect to the 
information provided by the Commenter, EPA finds that the Commenter 
used different baselines to evaluate the costs and visibility benefits 
of a lower sulfur content fuel oil. Specifically, the Commenter based 
costs on lower 2009-2011 operating rates and fuel-use data, but 
evaluated visibility benefits based on a 2001-2003 baseline period with 
a much higher operating rate. This approach neglects to consider that 
less fuel use would result in less visibility impairment. Had the 
Commenter adjusted the visibility benefits to match 2009-2011 operating 
rates, the visibility benefits would have been much lower. Therefore, 
the Commenter's $/dv estimates are artificially low. Consistent with 
the State's BART modeling protocol, FDEP's visibility modeling was 
appropriately based on a 2001-2003 baseline for estimates of both 
visibility impacts and fuel consumption, assuring that higher 
visibility impacts from the higher level of fuel utilization in that 
period were properly considered. FDEP then based total costs on the 
latest estimates of fuel costs assuming baseline year consumption. 
Finally, while FDEP should have considered cumulative visibility 
impacts in assessing the 0.7 percent sulfur fuel oil option, it is 
ultimately of no consequence because FDEP selected this option as BART 
for both Units 1 and 2.
    Comment 28: The Commenter states that FDEP should not have 
eliminated DSI as SO2 BART for McIntosh because ``the space 
required for DSI is minimal, as is the capital cost.''
    Response 28: EPA notes that DSI requires an adequate PM control 
device to collect the sulfate particles generated by the sorbent 
injection system. Currently, there are no add-on particulate controls 
on the oil-fired units at McIntosh. Installation of DSI would therefore 
require installation of a fabric filter system or ESP to capture the 
sulfate particles generated. The expense of adding a new particulate 
control system in addition to DSI itself would have made this control 
option not cost-effective for Units 1 and 2 at McIntosh.
    Comment 29: The Commenter believes that FDEP also should have 
evaluated the firing of 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil, 0.5 percent sulfur 
fuel oil, distillate, and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) in its 
SO2 BART analysis for McIntosh.
    Response 29: As is discussed in more detail in EPA's response to 
Comment 14, the BART Guidelines do not require states to list all 
permutations of available control levels that exist for a given 
technology. FDEP evaluated switching from 0.7 percent sulfur fuel oil 
to 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil in its BART analyses for several other 
facilities. In these other instances, FDEP presented the cost-
effectiveness of switching to 0.7 percent and 0.3 percent sulfur fuel 
oils, which are the commonly-available grades of residual fuel oil. The 
use of 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil would require a blending of these 
two fuel oils, and its cost-effectiveness can be interpolated from the 
information provided. Distillate and ULSD would be substantially more 
expensive than 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil, which FDEP had already 
determined was not cost-effective. FDEP did not re-perform this 
analysis for Units 1 and 2 at McIntosh because distillate oil and ULSD 
were found to not be cost-effective in the BART analyses for other 
facilities. EPA does not believe that an explicit evaluation of these 
additional fuels for McIntosh would have resulted in a different 
conclusion because the analysis is dependent on fuel cost, and fuel 
cost is approximately uniform among the facilities evaluated by FDEP 
given that the suppliers of fuel oil in Florida that service the other 
EGUs are the same as those that supply Lakeland Electric, including the 
McIntosh facility.
FPL Manatee
    Comment 30: The Commenter believes that FDEP also should have 
considered 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil, distillate, and ULSD fuel oils 
in the SO2 BART analysis for FPL Manatee (Manatee).
    Response 30: See response to Comment 29. The same rationale for not 
assessing additional fuels at McIntosh also applies to Manatee.
    Comment 31: The Commenter alleges that FDEP overestimated the costs 
and underestimated the visibility benefits of reducing fuel oil sulfur 
content in evaluating SO2 BART options. According to the 
Commenter, FDEP should have included the cumulative visibility 
improvements at Everglades National Park and Chassahowitzka Wilderness 
Area associated with the fuel switching options and should have used a 
2009-2011 baseline period to estimate heat inputs and fuel costs rather 
than the 2001-2003 period chosen by FDEP. The Commenter contends that 
0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil

[[Page 53264]]

is SO2 BART because FDEP overestimated the cost of switching 
to this fuel oil by not considering that the use of fuel oil is 
``likely to continue to decrease in favor of gas.''
    Response 31: In regards to the comments on cost estimates and the 
correct baseline period, see the response to Comment 27. In regards to 
the comment on cumulative visibility benefits, while EPA agrees that 
Florida should have considered the visibility improvements at all 
affected Class I areas in its BART visibility assessments, EPA does not 
believe that doing so would have altered the outcome here. For the 
Manatee BART analysis, Florida modeled visibility impacts at the 
Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Area as well as at Everglades National 
Park, the only other mandatory Class I Federal area within the 
surrounding 300 km CALPUFF modeling domain. For SO2 BART, 
FDEP evaluated the costs and visibility benefits associated with 
switching from 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil to 0.7 percent and 0.3 
percent sulfur fuel oil. FDEP selected 0.7 percent sulfur fuel oil as 
BART at a cost-effectiveness of $5,468/ton of SO2 reduced 
and rejected 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil at a cost-effectiveness of 
$6,542/ton of SO2 reduced. The incremental cost-
effectiveness of lowering the sulfur level in fuel oil from 0.7 percent 
to 0.3 percent was $7,348/ton of SO2 reduced. The Commenter 
did not provide any data in support of its contention that the use of 
fuel oil is likely to continue to decrease in favor of gas such that a 
switch to 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil would be more cost effective. EPA 
agrees with FDEP's SO2 BART determination and is not 
persuaded that, given the incremental cost-effectiveness of more 
stringent controls, consideration of cumulative visibility benefits or 
the Commenter's assumptions regarding trends in fuel oil usage would 
have resulted in a different BART determination for SO2.
    Comment 32: The Commenter argues that BART should be a fuel-
specific determination and that EPA should not allow the source to 
blend a fuel oil with sulfur content higher than what is determined to 
be BART with natural gas. The Commenter believes that blending fuel oil 
with natural gas is not a legitimate offset because natural gas would 
be used anyway.
    Response 32: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's view that BART 
needs to be a fuel-specific determination. Except in cases where work 
practices are delineated, BART is an emissions limit, not a specified 
technology.\30\ Blending fuels to lower the emissions rate is an 
acceptable and cost-effective method to reduce emissions and their 
associated visibility impacts, and it is allowed by the EPA New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart D rules for oil-fired boilers. The 
Commenter's statement that ``natural gas would be used anyway'' is not 
explained or supported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, I.E.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 33: The Commenter believes that FDEP should have evaluated 
additional combustion controls and SNCR in the NOX BART 
analysis for Manatee and cites to units in EPA's CAMD database with 
lower NOX emissions rates than the rate selected as 
NOX BART.
    Response 33: The Manatee units are currently equipped with multiple 
NOX emissions control methods including: Flue gas 
recirculation, overfire air systems, staged combustion, low 
NOX burners, and re-burn. FDEP assessed SCR as a technically 
feasible post-combustion NOX control, but did not evaluate 
SNCR. For oil-fired units, the technical feasibility of SNCR is 
uncertain because SNCR depends on the availability of an accessible 
location within the furnace with relatively high temperatures where 
injectors could be installed. To determine whether such a location 
existed in these units would have required a detailed engineering 
analysis because oil-fired boilers typically operate at lower peak 
temperatures than coal-fired boilers. While the BART Guidelines 
ordinarily require states to make a reasoned determination that a 
widely available control technology, such as SNCR, is technically 
infeasible before rejecting it, EPA does not believe that SCR would be 
BART for NOX at Manatee. Six to 17 percent of the 98th 
percentile visibility impact at the Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area from 
2001-2003 was attributable to NOX emissions from Manatee. 
FDEP evaluated SCR operating at 90 percent efficiency as part of its 
BART analysis for Manatee and determined that this control technology 
would improve visibility by 0.47 dv at a cost of $3,776/ton of 
NOX reduced, or approximately $66 million/dv. The likely 
visibility improvement from SNCR, if it were feasible for these oil-
fired units, would range from 0.1 dv to 0.2 dv (assuming a 25 to 40 
percent reduction potentially achievable with the use of SNCR). EPA 
concludes that, in light of the visibility improvement predicted for a 
highly efficient SCR, that a more thorough evaluation of a less 
effective technology would not have changed the State's BART 
determination.
FPL Martin Power Plant
    Comment 34: The Commenter believes that FDEP also should have 
considered 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil, distillate, and ULSD fuel oils 
in the SO2 BART analysis for FPL Martin Power Plant 
(Martin).
    Response 34: See the response to Comment 29.
    Comment 35: The Commenter contends that FDEP inappropriately 
dismissed FGD systems from consideration as BART because, according to 
the Commenter, FGD systems are ``feasible and in use on oil-fired 
boilers'' even though these systems ``are seldom used on oil-fired 
boilers because it is more cost-effective to reduce fuel sulfur 
content.''
    Response 35: According to the BART Guidelines, ``[a]vailable 
retrofit control options are those air pollution control technologies 
with a practical potential for application to the emissions unit and 
the regulated pollutant under evaluation.'' \31\ Based on a review of 
EPA's Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control 
Technology/Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) 
Clearinghouse,\32\ EPA is not aware of any oil-fired utility boilers 
currently equipped with a FGD system. As noted by the Commenter, oil-
fired utility boilers that need to reduce SO2 emissions 
typically rely on lower sulfur fuel oil where the desulfurization is 
conducted at the refinery rather than after combustion in the utility 
boiler. Thus, EPA believes that the State's decision not to include FGD 
in the BART analysis for this facility was reasonable and consistent 
with the BART Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, IV.D.1.
    \32\ https://cfpub.epa.gov/RBLC/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 36: The Commenter alleges that FDEP overestimated the costs 
and underestimated the visibility benefits of reducing fuel oil sulfur 
content in evaluating SO2 BART options. According to the 
Commenter, FDEP should have included the cumulative visibility 
improvements at Everglades National Park and Chassahowitzka Wilderness 
Area associated with the fuel switching options and should have used a 
2009-2011 baseline period to estimate heat inputs and fuel costs rather 
than the 2001-2003 period chosen by FDEP.
    Response 36: In regards to the comments on cost estimates and the 
correct baseline period, see the response to Comment 27. In regards to 
the comment on cumulative visibility benefits, while EPA agrees that 
Florida

[[Page 53265]]

should have considered the visibility improvements at all affected 
Class I areas in its BART visibility assessments, EPA does not think 
doing so would have altered the outcome here. For the Martin BART 
analysis, Florida modeled visibility impacts at the Chassahowitzka 
Wilderness Area as well as at Everglades National Park, the only other 
mandatory Class I Federal area within the surrounding 300 km CALPUFF 
modeling domain. For SO2 BART, FDEP evaluated the costs and 
visibility benefits associated with switching from 0.7 percent sulfur 
fuel oil to 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil. FDEP rejected 0.3 percent 
sulfur fuel oil at a cost-effectiveness of $7,348/ton of SO2 
reduced. Similarly, for NOX BART, FDEP evaluated the costs 
and visibility benefits associated with the installation of SCR. FDEP 
rejected SCR at a cost-effectiveness of $5,323/ton of NOX 
reduced, with a visibility improvement at Chassahowitzka of just 0.15 
dv. EPA agrees with FDEP's SO2 and NOX BART 
determinations and is not persuaded, given the cost-effectiveness 
values associated with more stringent controls, that consideration of 
cumulative visibility benefits would have resulted in a different BART 
determination for SO2.
    Comment 37: The Commenter believes that FDEP should have evaluated 
additional combustion controls and SNCR in the NOX BART 
analysis and cites to units in EPA's CAMD database with lower 
NOX emissions rates than the rate selected as NOX 
BART.
    Response 37: See the response to Comment 33. The Martin units, like 
the Manatee units, are currently equipped with multiple NOX 
emissions control methods including flue gas recirculation, overfire 
air systems, staged combustion, and low NOX burners. FDEP 
assessed SCR as a technically feasible post-combustion NOX 
control, but did not evaluate SNCR. For oil-fired units, the technical 
feasibility of SNCR is uncertain because SNCR depends on the 
availability of an accessible location within the furnace with 
relatively high temperatures where injectors could be installed. To 
determine whether such a location existed in these units would have 
required a detailed engineering analysis because oil-fired boilers 
typically operate at lower peak temperatures than coal-fired boilers. 
While the BART Guidelines ordinarily require states to make a reasoned 
determination that a widely available control technology, such as SNCR, 
is technically infeasible before rejecting it, EPA does not believe 
that SCR would be BART for NOX at Martin. Six to seven 
percent of the 98th percentile visibility impact at the Chassahowitzka 
Wilderness Area from 2001-2003 was attributable to NOX 
emissions from Martin. FDEP evaluated SCR operating at 90 percent 
efficiency as part of its BART analysis for Martin and determined that 
this control technology would improve visibility by 0.15 dv at a cost 
of $5,323/per ton of NOX reduced. Therefore, the likely 
visibility improvement from SNCR, if it were feasible for these oil-
fired units, would be less than 0.1 dv (assuming a 25 to 40 percent 
reduction achievable with the use of SNCR). EPA concludes that, in 
light of the visibility improvement predicted for a highly efficient 
SCR, that a more thorough evaluation of a less effective technology 
would not have changed the State's BART determination.
    Comment 38: The Commenter states that FDEP's PM BART analysis 
should have considered the increase in PM emissions resulting from the 
re-injection of fly ash into the boiler and that FDEP ``should prohibit 
the reinjection of fly ash to provide an economical interim reduction 
in PM10 emissions.''
    Response 38: EPA disagrees that FDEP should have considered the 
elimination or restriction of fly ash reinjection in its PM BART 
analysis. EPA has no data on the impacts of fly ash re-injection on 
oil-fired utility boilers and no basis to determine whether prohibiting 
fly ash re-injection would improve visibility because of the low 
particulate load of the flue gas emitted from oil-fired boilers. 
Although restricting fly ash re-injection is not an emissions control 
technology in the conventional sense, EPA believes that the BART 
Guidelines' instructions on technical feasibility are instructive. 
Under the BART Guidelines, a control technology is technically feasible 
if it is ``available'' (i.e., if a source owner may obtain it through 
commercial channels or it is otherwise available within the common 
sense meaning of the term) and ``applicable'' (i.e., it can reasonably 
be installed and operated on the source at issue).\33\ An applicability 
evaluation generally involves consideration of gas stream 
characteristics, the capabilities of the technology, and unresolvable 
technical difficulties. Operators of certain coal-fired boilers re-
inject fly ash for the purpose of energy conservation, not emissions 
control. Coal-fired boilers generate substantially greater amounts of 
ash and have particulate control technologies with different 
characteristics than oil-fired boilers. Although fly ash re-injection 
has been prohibited for certain coal-fired boilers, there is no 
evidence that this methodology has been used for oil-fired boilers and 
no evidence that the gas streams are similar enough such that the 
process would be applicable as a PM emissions control technique for 
oil-fired boilers. For these reasons, EPA believes that the Commenter's 
extrapolation of a control technique from coal-fired to oil-fired 
boilers is not appropriate in this instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, IV.D.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FPL Turkey Point Power Plant
    Comment 39: The Commenter believes that FDEP also should have 
considered 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil, distillate, and ULSD fuel oils 
in the SO2 BART analysis and 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil, 
0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil, distillate, and ULSD fuel oils in the PM 
BART analysis for FPL Turkey Point Power Plant (Turkey Point).
    Response 39: Regarding SO2 BART, see the response to 
Comment 29. With regard to PM BART, Unit 2 is shutting down and Unit 1 
has a PM emissions limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu and is limited under BART to 
operating at no more than 25 percent of capacity on fuel oil with the 
remainder of operations on natural gas. This limit will result in an 
emissions reduction of over 80 percent from the baseline emissions from 
Units 1 and 2 combined. EPA believes that, in light of these conditions 
and because the baseline PM contribution from this facility is 
approximately 0.1 dv, any additional PM measures would result in 
negligible visibility improvement.
    Comment 40: The Commenter alleges that FDEP overestimated the costs 
and underestimated the visibility benefits of reducing fuel oil sulfur 
content in evaluating SO2 BART options. According to the 
Commenter, FDEP should have used a 2009-2011 baseline period to 
estimate heat inputs and fuel costs rather than the 2001-2003 period 
chosen by FDEP. The Commenter also believes that it is inconsistent for 
FDEP to conclude that 0.7 percent sulfur fuel oil is feasible at 
$19,197/ton but that 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil is not feasible at 
$16,044/ton and to conclude that its SO2 BART determination 
will produce a significant visibility improvement of 0.6 dv while 
``dismiss[ing] 2.5 deciview and 1.5 deciview incremental improvements 
as `extremely small.' ''
    Response 40: In regards to the comments on cost estimates and the 
correct baseline period, see the response to Comment 27. Regarding the 
alleged inconsistency in cost-effectiveness, FDEP did not rely on this 
factor for its SO2 BART determination for Turkey Point. As 
part of an alternative PM emissions reduction strategy, FDEP

[[Page 53266]]

approved the use of 0.7 percent low sulfur fuel oil, a reduction in the 
PM emissions limit to 0.07 lb/MMBtu, and a limitation on the use of 
fuel oil equivalent to a capacity factor of 25 percent. For 
SO2 BART, FDEP evaluated wet and dry FGD, 0.7 percent sulfur 
fuel oil, and 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil. Despite the high cost-
effectiveness of 0.7 percent sulfur fuel oil, FDEP determined that it 
was SO2 BART due to the fact that the fuel also satisfied 
the PM BART requirement.
    Comment 41: The Commenter believes that FDEP should have evaluated 
additional combustion controls and SNCR in the NOX BART 
analysis for Turkey Point and cites to units in the CAMD database with 
lower NOX emissions rates than the rate selected as 
NOX BART.
    Response 41: No further analysis was necessary for Turkey Point 
Unit 2 because there is a federally enforceable requirement to shut 
down the unit as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 
December 31, 2013. Unit 1 currently employs low NOX burners 
that reduce NOX formation in the combustion zone. For 
NOX BART, FDEP evaluated SNCR and SCR as potential post-
combustion controls. Baseline visibility modeling for Turkey Point 
showed that nitrates contributed less than three percent of the 
visibility impairment associated with the emissions from both Units 1 
and 2 at this facility. In light of these minimal visibility impacts, 
FDEP determined that additional NOX reductions from Unit 1 
were not required, and maintained the existing NOX emissions 
limit of 0.40 lb/MMBtu when firing natural gas and 0.53 lb/MMBtu when 
firing fuel oil, with continuous emissions monitoring and a 30-day 
rolling average based on a state rule, 62-296.570 F.A.C., for 
NOX reasonably available control technology. EPA concludes 
that FDEP's conclusions were reasonable.
    Comment 42: The Commenter states that FDEP's PM BART analysis 
should have considered the increase in PM emissions resulting from the 
re-injection of fly ash into the boiler and that FDEP should have 
included the elimination of fly ash re-injection in its PM BART 
analysis.
    Response 42: See the response to Comment 38.
JEA Northside
    Comment 43: The Commenter alleges that JEA Northside had the lowest 
$/ton fuel switching option rejected by FDEP and that FDEP did not 
explain why it rejected this option or why it did not evaluate a more 
comprehensive switch to lower sulfur fuels. The Commenter contends that 
FDEP should explain why a switch from 1.0 percent to 0.7 percent sulfur 
fuel oil is not cost-effective at JEA Northside when it is cost-
effective at Manatee.
    Response 43: FDEP's cost-effectiveness estimate for converting from 
1.8 to 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil was $7,184/ton of SO2 
reduced. FDEP also estimated that the conversion would cost $31.1 
million/dv. EPA concurs that these high cost-effectiveness values 
provide sufficient justification for FDEP's decision to reject 1.0 
percent sulfur fuel oil as SO2 BART for this facility. In 
its BART analyses for other oil-fired units, FDEP presented the cost-
effectiveness of switching to 0.7 percent and 0.3 percent sulfur fuel 
oils, which are the commonly available grades of residual fuel oil. 
FDEP did not extend the analysis to JEA Northside because it was found 
not to be cost-effective in the BART analyses for other facilities. EPA 
does not believe that an explicit evaluation of these additional fuels 
for JEA Northside would have resulted in a different conclusion because 
the analysis is dependent on fuel cost, a cost that is approximately 
uniform among the facilities evaluated by FDEP given that the suppliers 
of fuel oil in Florida that service the other facilities are the same 
as those that supply JEA Northside.
    Comment 44: The Commenter states that FDEP did not justify the use 
of an 80 percent control efficiency assumption for SCR and that any 
additional energy costs associated with the control should have been 
included in the cost analysis and not ``double-counted.'' The Commenter 
also states that the ammonia issues identified by FDEP are common to 
all SCR systems and can be addressed by good operating procedures.
    Response 44: FDEP included an evaluation of the energy and non-air 
quality impacts associated with SCR for completeness because these 
impacts are, collectively, one of the five statutory factors to be 
considered in a BART determination. The improvement in visibility at 
Okefenokee associated with the installation of an SCR operating at 80 
percent efficiency and Unit 3 operating at a maximum permitted capacity 
of 28 percent was estimated to be 0.26 dv. A SCR operating at 90 
percent efficiency would improve this estimate by roughly 0.03 dv. EPA 
believes that the limited visibility improvement that would result from 
adjusting the control efficiency of SCR to 90 percent would not have 
changed FDEP's conclusion that SCR is not warranted as BART at JEA 
Northside.
Visibility Metrics
    Comment 45: The Commenter alleges that FDEP was inconsistent in its 
approach to evaluating dollars per dv values, citing the $11.3 million 
(M)/dv value associated with SO2 BART for McIntosh and the 
$17.7M/dv value associated with SNCR at Crystal River (a control not 
selected as NOX BART at the facility). The Commenter also 
states that FDEP's conclusions regarding $/dv values are not consistent 
with those across the country. The Commenter further states that FDEP 
does not explain why it determined that upgrading to FGD at McIntosh 
and adding FGD at Lansing Smith are not reasonable when the cost-
effectiveness values associated with those controls are lower than the 
$6,542/ton cost-effectiveness value associated with SO2 BART 
at Manatee.
    Response 45: FDEP evaluated BART on a case-by-case basis using 
facility-specific conditions. Thus, it is to be expected that the 
resulting BART determinations may appear to be inconsistent when 
compared using a single metric. For example, at Manatee, FDEP 
determined that equivalent visibility improvements to those that can be 
achieved by switching to 0.7 percent sulfur fuel oil could be achieved 
by removing the current prohibition on blending and co-firing 1.0 
percent sulfur fuel oil with natural gas and by lowering the allowable 
emissions limit to 0.8 lb/MMBtu (12-month rolling average). The 
estimate of $6,542/ton for SO2 controls is based on using 
lower sulfur fuel oil only for compliance, and the blending and co-
firing option is expected to be less expensive in practice. By 
comparison, at Lansing Smith, the limited incremental visibility 
improvement (0.07-0.09 dv) from installing a FGD was weighed heavily in 
FDEP's BART determination even though FDEP concluded the cost-
effectiveness values would have been reasonable had there been greater 
visibility improvement.
    Comment 46: The Commenter is concerned that the proposed source-
specific BART and reasonable progress emissions limits for the Florida 
EGUs subject to CAIR would allow emissions to increase compared to 2011 
actual emissions.
    Response 46: EPA does not consider the situation presented by the 
Commenter to be a realistic future scenario. The Commenter assumes that 
the present use of natural gas at oil/gas units will be replaced with 
the use of residual fuel oil at the levels used in

[[Page 53267]]

2001-2003. The Commenter's concern that emissions may increase are 
based on the assumption that three oil-fired Florida EGUs (Martin, 
Manatee, and Turkey Point) could revert to firing residual oil rather 
than the current use of natural gas. EPA does not consider reversion to 
oil-firing at these units to be a plausible scenario for the first 
implementation period. FDEP relied on the VISTAS IPM projections to 
project 2018 emissions that consider, among other factors, the expected 
price of oil and gas in the projection year to estimate facility 
utilization. As noted in the Florida regional haze SIP narrative, these 
projections are conservative because several of the units have either 
shut down or repowered to gas entirely, making the scenario of 
reverting to firing residual oil even more unlikely and resulting in 
even lower emissions levels in 2011 than predicted for 2018.
Use of Interpolative Methods
    Comment 47: The Commenter states that EPA cannot approve the BART 
determinations for Crystal River, McIntosh, and JEA Northside because 
FDEP relied on ``rough calculations `instead of modeling' to determine 
visibility impacts under step 5 of the BART analysis.''
    Response 47: EPA has reviewed the visibility impact calculation 
procedures for the BART determinations identified by the Commenter. 
While the calculations were not performed in accordance with the BART 
Guidelines, EPA agrees with FDEP that they are acceptable in this 
instance. The methodology used for these facilities to estimate 
visibility impacts relied on a simplifying assumption that the 
visibility impacts would be reduced in direct proportion to the 
reduction in emissions of individual visibility-impairing pollutants. 
Based on the results of other BART determinations where emissions 
reductions have been modeled with CALPUFF, the direct relationship 
assumption would likely overestimate reductions in visibility impacts 
as opposed to understating them. EPA acknowledges that unlike a 
Gaussian plume model, such as AERMOD, there is not a direct linear 
relationship between emissions and calculated visibility impacts when 
using the CALPUFF modeling system. However, CALPUFF's calculation of 
visibility impacts has been termed ``quasi-linear'' in EPA's Guideline 
on Air Quality Models.\34\ Therefore, an assumption of a linear 
response to changes in emissions is a reasonable estimation and the 
simplified methodology used for these BART determinations likely 
provides conservative overestimates of visibility impact reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 48: The Commenter states that it would be unlawful and 
arbitrary for EPA to fully approve Florida's regional haze SIP because 
it ``improperly relies on the illegal [CAIR] for inventories and 
projections from upwind states, which in turn form the basis for 
Florida's [RPGs] and its entire reasonable progress strategy.'' 
According to the Commenter, the State's RPGs also include assumptions 
based on Florida's SO2 emissions under CAIR and there is no 
guarantee that CAIR's eventual replacement rule will cover 
SO2 emissions and achieve the emissions reductions predicted 
under CAIR. The Commenter also contends that it is not appropriate for 
EPA to wait until the five-year progress report to update these RPGs 
based on updated information; that states which have failed to update 
their SIPs to remove reliance on CAIR do not have a ``reliance 
interest'' in CAIR; and that Florida must revise its Q/d reasonable 
progress exemption threshold because it was selected based on Florida's 
projected progress toward natural visibility conditions that relied on 
CAIR. The Commenter believes that it is factually and legally incorrect 
for EPA to state that the emissions reductions associated with CAIR 
will be sufficiently permanent and enforceable for the necessary time 
period when ``CAIR has been struck down'' and EPA has ``disapproved 
reliance on CAIR for regional haze purposes.''
    Response 48: With regard to CAIR, see the response to Comment 1. 
With regard to Q/d, see the response to Comment 6. Regarding the 
regional haze SIP disapproval actions cited by the Commenter, EPA took 
all of these actions before the D.C. Circuit ruling in EME Homer City. 
Since that decision, EPA has stated its belief that it would be 
appropriate to rescind the limited disapproval actions for those 
regional haze SIPs that relied on CAIR should EME Homer City be upheld. 
See, e.g., 78 FR 11805, 11807 (Feb. 20, 2013).

IV. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing a full approval of all remaining portions of 
Florida's regional haze SIP. EPA also finds that the entire Florida 
regional haze SIP now meets the applicable regional haze requirements 
as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-
51.308.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country, and EPA notes that it 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small

[[Page 53268]]

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by October 28, 2013. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 14, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. Section 52.520 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (c) by adding one new entry in numerical order under 
Chapter 62-296 Stationary Sources--Emissions Standards for ``62-
296.340'';
0
b. In paragraph (e) by adding five new entries for ``Initial Regional 
Haze Plan,'' ``Regional Haze Plan Amendment 1,'' ``Regional Haze Plan 
Amendment 2,'' ``Progress Energy Permit (Air Permit No. 0170004-038-
AC),'' and ``Update to October 15, 2013, Progress Energy Permit (Air 
Permit No. 0170004-038-AC)'' at the end of the table to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Florida Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State effective
    State citation (Section)         Title/subject           date        EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                             Chapter 62-296 Stationary Sources--Emissions Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
62-296.340......................  Best Available              1/31/07   8/29/13 [Insert      ...................
                                   Retrofit                              citations of
                                   Technology.                           publication].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *


                                 EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         State       EPA-approval      Federal Register
             Provision              effective date       date               notice              Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Initial Regional Haze Plan........         3/19/10         8/29/13  [Insert citation of
                                                                     publication]
Regional Haze Plan Amendment 1....         8/31/10         8/29/13  [Insert citation of
                                                                     publication]
Regional Haze Plan Amendment 2....         9/17/12         8/29/13  [Insert citation of    Remaining Portion of
                                                                     publication].          Regional Haze Plan
                                                                                            Amendment not
                                                                                            approved on November
                                                                                            29, 2012.
Progress Energy Permit (Air Permit        10/15/12         8/29/13  [Insert citation of
 No. 0170004-038-AC).                                                publication]
Update to October 15, 2013,                 5/2/13         8/29/13  [Insert citation of
 Progress Energy Permit (Air                                         publication]
 Permit No. 0170004-038-AC).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 53269]]

[FR Doc. 2013-21028 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P