31240 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

§ 201.18 Notice of intention to obtain a 

compulsory license for making and 

distributing phonorecords of nondramatic 

musical works. 

(a) * * * 

(4) A Notice of Intention shall be 

served or filed for nondramatic musical 

works embodied, or intended to be 

embodied, in phonorecords made under 

the compulsory license. For purposes of 

this section and subject to 

subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), a Notice 

filed with the Copyright Office which 

lists multiple works shall be considered 

a single Notice and fees shall be paid in 

accordance with the fee schedule set 

forth in § 201.3(e)(1) if filed in the 

Copyright Office under paragraph (f)(3) 

of this section. Payment of the 

applicable fees for a Notice submitted 

electronically under this paragraph shall 

be made through a deposit account 

established under § 201.6(b). 

(i) Except as provided for in 

paragraph (a)(7), a Notice of Intention 

served on a copyright owner or agent of 

a copyright owner may designate any 

number of nondramatic musical works 

provided that that the information 

required under paragraphs (d)(1)(i) 

through (iv) of this section does not vary 

and that the copyright owner of each 

designated work is the same, or in the 

case of any work having more than one 

copyright owner, that any one of the 

copyright owners is the same and is the 

copyright owner served. 

(ii) A Notice of Intention filed in the 

Copyright Office in paper form may 

designate any number of nondramatic 

musical works provided that that the 

information required under paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section does 

not vary, and that the copyright owner 

of each designated work (or, in the case 

of works having more than one 

copyright owner, any one of the 

copyright owners) is the same and the 

registration records or other public 

records of the Copyright Office do not 

identify the copyright owner(s) of such 

work(s) and include an address for any 

such owner(s) at which notice can be 

served. For purposes of this 

subparagraph, in the case of works 

having more than one copyright owner, 

a single Notice must identify an actual 

person or entity as the common 

copyright owner; the common copyright 

owner may not be identified as 

‘‘unknown.’’ However, a single Notice 

may include multiple works for which 

no copyright owners can be identified 

for any of the listed works. 

(iii) A Notice of Intention filed in the 

Copyright Office in electronic format 

may designate multiple nondramatic 

musical works, regardless of whether 

the copyright owner of each designated 

work (or, in the case of any work having 

more than one copyright owner, any one 

of the copyright owners) is the same, 

provided that the information required 

under paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iv) 

of this section does not vary, and that 

for any designated work, the records of 

the Copyright Office do not include an 

address at which notice can be served. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(5) If the Notice is filed in the Office 

electronically, the person or entity 

intending to obtain the compulsory 

license or a duly authorized agent of 

such person or entity shall, rather than 

signing the Notice, attest that he or she 

has the appropriate authority of the 

licensee, including any related entities 

listed, if applicable, to submit the 

electronically filed Notice on behalf of 

the licensee. 

* * * * * 

(g) Filing date and legal sufficiency of 

Notices. The Copyright Office will 

notify a prospective licensee when a 

Notice was not accompanied by 

payment of the required fee. Notices 

shall be deemed filed as of the date the 

Office receives both the Notice and the 

fee, if applicable. If the prospective 

licensee fails to remit the required fee, 

the Notice will be deemed not to have 

been filed with the Office. However, the 

Copyright Office does not review 

Notices for legal sufficiency or interpret 

the content of any Notice filed with the 

Copyright Office under this section. 

Furthermore, the Copyright Office does 

not screen Notices for errors or 

discrepancies and it does not generally 

correspond with a prospective licensee 

about the sufficiency of a Notice. If any 

issue (other than an issue related to fees) 

arises as to whether a Notice filed in the 

Copyright Office is sufficient as a matter 

of law under this section, that issue 

shall be determined not by the 

Copyright Office, but shall be subject to 

determination by a court of competent 

jurisdiction. Prospective licensees are 

therefore cautioned to review and 

scrutinize Notices to assure their legal 

sufficiency before filing them in the 

Copyright Office. 

(h) Harmless errors. Harmless errors 

in a Notice that do not materially affect 

the adequacy of the information 

required to serve the purposes of section 

115(b)(1) of title 17 of the United States 

Code, shall not render the Notice 

invalid. 

(i) Privacy Act Advisory Statement. 

The authority for receiving the 

personally identifying information 

included within a Notice of Intention to 

obtain a compulsory license is found in 

17 U.S.C. 115 and § 201.18. Personally 

identifying information is any personal 

information that can be used to identify 

or trace an individual, such as name, 

address or telephone numbers. 

Furnishing the information set forth in 

§ 201.18 is voluntary. However, if the 

information is not furnished, it may 

affect the sufficiency of Notice of 

Intention to obtain a compulsory license 

and may not entitle the prospective 

licensee to the benefits available under 

17 U.S.C. 115. The principal uses of the 

requested information are the 

establishment and maintenance of a 

public record of the Notices of Intention 

to obtain a compulsory license received 

in the Licensing Division of the 

Copyright Office. Other routine uses 

include public inspection and copying, 

preparation of public indexes, 

preparation of public catalogs of 

copyright records including online 

catalogs, and preparation of search 

reports upon request. 

Dated: May 18, 2012 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12652 Filed 5–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–33–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0935, FRL–9677–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Florida; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of two revisions to the Florida 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Florida 

through the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) on 

March 19, 2010, and August 31, 2010. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing a 

limited approval of a draft SIP revision 

submitted by FDEP on April 13, 2012, 

for parallel processing. Collectively, 

these three SIP revisions address 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period. Specifically, 

these SIP revisions address the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act), and EPA’s rules that require 

states to prevent any future and remedy 

any existing anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

(national parks and wilderness areas) 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31241 

1See footnote 4 for further information. 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

towards the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of these SIP revisions to 

implement the regional haze 

requirements for Florida on the basis 

that these revisions, as a whole, 

strengthen the Florida SIP. Previously, 

EPA proposed a limited disapproval of 

the Florida regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in Florida’s regional haze 

SIP arising from the remand by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to EPA 

of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

Consequently, EPA is not proposing to 

take action in this rulemaking to address 

the State’s reliance on CAIR to meet 

certain regional haze requirements.1

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–0935, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0935, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

0935.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Waterson or Michele Notarianni, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Sara 

Waterson can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9061 and by 

electronic mail at 

waterson.sara@epa.gov. Michele 

Notarianni can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9031 and by 

electronic mail at 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What Action is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is parallel processing? 

III. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

IV. What are the requirements for the 

Regional Haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s 

Regional Haze SIP revisions? 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in Florida and Surrounding 

Areas 

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in 

the Reasonable Progress Analysis 

6. BART 

7. RPGs 

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

F. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

VI. What action is EPA taking? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31242 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2The April 13, 2012, draft SIP revision evaluates 

BART and reasonable progress provisions for 

several of Florida’s EGUs. 

3Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and 

EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval 

results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even 

of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA 

from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 

Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management Division, 

OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional 

Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. 

4Florida’s SIP revisions rely on CAIR to address 

BART requirements related to both nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). However, EPA’s 

replacement rule for CAIR (i.e., the ‘‘Transport 

Rule,’’ also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule) includes Florida only in the trading program 

to cover NOx. States such as Florida that are subject 

to the requirements of the Transport Rule trading 

program only for NOx must still address BART for 

SO2 and other visibility impairing pollutants. On 

December 30, 2011, EPA proposed a limited 

disapproval of the Florida regional haze SIP 

because of deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR to 

meet certain regional haze requirements. In that 

action, EPA also proposed to issue a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) to address the 

deficiencies in Florida’s SIP associated with the 

BART requirements for NOx for electrical 

generating units (EGUs) based on EPA’s proposed 

revisions to the RHR allowing states to substitute 

participation in the trading programs under the 

Transport Rule for source-specific BART. However, 

EPA did not propose a plan to address the 

deficiencies associated with the BART requirements 

for SO2 since the Transport Rule does not cover SO2

emissions from Florida EGUs. Because Florida also 

relied on CAIR in assessing the need for emissions 

reductions for SO2 from EGUs to satisfy BART 

requirements, the State is currently re-evaluating 

EGUs with respect to SO2 BART requirements. 

5 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

6Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas 

consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, 

wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 

U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of 

the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 

FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

I. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of two Florida SIP revisions submitted 

by FDEP on March 19, 2010, and August 

31, 2010. Today, EPA is also proposing 

a limited approval of a draft SIP revision 

submitted by FDEP on April 13, 2012, 

for parallel processing. See section II of 

this proposed rulemaking for more 

detail on parallel processing. These 

three SIP revisions address regional 

haze requirements for Florida under 

CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3). EPA 

is proposing a limited approval of these 

SIP revisions because the revisions, as a 

whole, strengthen the Florida SIP. 

Throughout this document, references 

to Florida’s (or FDEP’s or the State’s) 

‘‘regional haze SIP’’ refer to Florida’s 

original March 19, 2010, regional haze 

SIP revision, as later supplemented in a 

SIP revision submitted August 31, 2010, 

and in a draft SIP revision dated April 

13, 2012.2 This proposed rulemaking 

explains the basis for EPA’s proposed 

limited approval action.3

In a separate action, EPA has 

previously proposed a limited 

disapproval of the Florida regional haze 

SIP because of deficiencies in the State’s 

regional haze SIP arising from the 

State’s reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. See 76 FR 

82219 (December 30, 2011). EPA is not 

proposing to take action in today’s 

rulemaking on issues associated with 

Florida’s reliance on CAIR in its 

regional haze SIP.4 EPA will address 

this in a separate rulemaking. 

II. What is parallel processing? 

Parallel processing refers to a 

concurrent state and federal proposed 

rulemaking action. Generally under this 

process, the state submits a copy of the 

proposed SIP revisions to EPA before 

conducting its public hearing. See, e.g., 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. EPA 

reviews this proposed state action and 

prepares a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. EPA publishes this notice 

of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register and solicits public comment 

during approximately the same time 

frame during which the state is holding 

its public hearing. The state and EPA 

thus provide for public comment 

periods on both the state and the federal 

actions in parallel. 

As mentioned above, on April 13, 

2012, Florida submitted a draft regional 

haze SIP revision along with a request 

for parallel processing. Florida provided 

the SIP revision for public comment on 

April 13, 2012, but the State has not yet 

finalized the SIP revision. Through 

today’s proposed rulemaking, EPA is 

proposing parallel limited approval for 

this draft SIP revision. 

Once the April 13, 2012, revision is 

state-effective, Florida will need to 

provide EPA with a formal SIP revision 

request to incorporate the revision into 

the Florida SIP. After Florida submits 

the formal SIP revision request 

(including a response to any public 

comments raised during the State’s 

public participation process), EPA will 

evaluate any changes to the SIP revision 

from what is proposed in today’s action. 

If any such changes are found by EPA 

to be significant, the Agency intends to 

re-propose the action based upon the 

revised submission. If the changes 

render the SIP revision not approvable, 

EPA would re-propose the action as a 

disapproval of the revision. If there are 

no significant changes, EPA will prepare 

a final rulemaking notice for the SIP 

revision. 

The FDEP-requested parallel 

processing allows EPA to begin to take 

action on the State’s draft SIP revision 

in advance of the submission of the 

formal SIP revision. As stated above, the 

final rulemaking action by EPA will 

occur only after the SIP revision has 

been: (1) Adopted by Florida, (2) 

evaluated for changes, and (3) submitted 

formally to EPA for incorporation into 

the SIP. 

III. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter which impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity, color, 

and visible distance that one can see. 

PM2.5 can also cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans and 

contributes to environmental effects 

such as acid deposition and 

eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range 5 in many Class I 

areas 6 (i.e., national parks and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31243 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 42 

U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may 

designate as Class I additional areas which they 

consider to have visibility as an important value, 

the requirements of the visibility program set forth 

in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory 

Class I area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ is used in this action, it means a 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

7Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

8The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 

(July 1, 1999). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ On December 

2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to 

address visibility impairment in Class I 

areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to 

a single source or small group of 

sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment.’’ See 45 FR 

80084. These regulations represented 

the first phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section IV of this preamble. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.7 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Visibility Improvement State and 

Tribal Association of the Southeast 

(VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of 

state governments, tribal governments, 

and various federal agencies established 

to initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the southeastern 

United States. Member state and tribal 

governments include: Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern 

Band of the Cherokee Indians. 

IV. What are the requirements for 

Regional Haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview as 

the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility 

expressed in deciviews is determined by 

using air quality measurements to 

estimate light extinction and then 

transforming the value of light 

extinction using a logarithm function. 

The deciview is a more useful measure 

for tracking progress in improving 

visibility than light extinction itself 

because each deciview change is an 

equal incremental change in visibility 

perceived by the human eye. Most 

people can detect a change in visibility 

at one deciview.8

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs (which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31244 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

9The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years, i.e., midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most 

impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over 

a specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. In addition, states must 

also develop an estimate of natural 

visibility conditions for the purpose of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. EPA has provided guidance 

to states regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural, and current visibility 

conditions in documents titled, EPA’s 

Guidance for Estimating Natural 

Visibility Conditions Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003 (EPA–454/ 

B–03–005 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance’’) and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003 (EPA–454/ 

B–03–004 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000—2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable 

Progress Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two 

distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and 

one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class 

I area for each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

of progress, but instead calls for states 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 

2007, memorandum from William L. 

Wehrum, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA 

Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting 

the RPGs, states must also consider the 

rate of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the 

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emissions 

reduction measures needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the 10-year 

period of the SIP. Uniform progress 

towards achievement of natural 

conditions by the year 2064 represents 

a rate of progress which states are to use 

for analytical comparison to the amount 

of progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each state with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emissions sources that may 

be affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 9 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emissions limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

determination for a fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating plant with a total 

generating capacity in excess of 750 

megawatts (MW), a state must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31245 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emissions sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Any exemption threshold set 

by the state should not be higher than 

0.5 deciview. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that 

states consider the following factors: (1) 

The costs of compliance; (2) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance; (3) any existing 

pollution control technology in use at 

the source; (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emissions limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP. See CAA section 

169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 

addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. 

As noted above, the RHR allows states 

to implement an alternative program in 

lieu of BART so long as the alternative 

program can be demonstrated to achieve 

greater reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal than would 

BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 

revising the regional haze program, EPA 

made just such a demonstration for 

CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). 

EPA’s regulations provide that states 

participating in the CAIR cap-and trade 

program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant 

to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which 

remain subject to the CAIR FIP in 40 

CFR part 97 need not require affected 

BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, 

and maintain BART for emissions of 

SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

Because CAIR did not address direct 

emissions of PM, states were still 

required to conduct a BART analysis for 

PM emissions from EGUs subject to 

BART for that pollutant. Challenges to 

CAIR, however, resulted in the remand 

of the rule to EPA. See North Carolina 

v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to 

address the interstate transport of NOX

and SO2 in the eastern United States. 

See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the 

Transport Rule,’’ also known as the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On 

December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to 

find that the trading programs in the 

Transport Rule would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would BART in the 

states in which the Transport Rule 

applies. See 76 FR 82219. Based on this 

proposed finding, EPA also proposed to 

revise the RHR to allow states to 

substitute participation in the trading 

programs under the Transport Rule for 

source-specific BART. EPA has not yet 

taken final action on that rule. Also on 

December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit 

issued an order addressing the status of 

the Transport Rule and CAIR in 

response to motions filed by numerous 

parties seeking a stay of the Transport 

Rule pending judicial review. In that 

order, the D.C. Circuit stayed the 

Transport Rule pending the court’s 

resolutions of the petitions for review of 

that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated 

cases). The court also indicated that 

EPA is expected to continue to 

administer CAIR in the interim until the 

court rules on the petitions for review 

of the Transport Rule. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The 

LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals’’ for all Class I areas 

within, or affected by emissions from, 

the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, 

the contributing state must demonstrate 

that it has included, in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emissions reductions needed to 

meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The 

RPOs have provided forums for 

significant interstate consultation, but 

additional consultations between states 

may be required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emissions reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31246 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

areas within the state. The strategy must 

be coordinated with the monitoring 

strategy required in section 51.305 for 

RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network, i.e., review and use of 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s 

regional haze SIP revisions? 

On March 19, 2010, FDEP submitted 

a revision to the Florida SIP to address 

regional haze requirements as required 

by EPA’s RHR. On August 31, 2010, 

FDEP submitted an additional SIP 

revision to address regional haze 

requirements. Specifically, Florida’s 

August 31, 2010, SIP revision adopted 

amendments to rescind its Reasonable 

Progress Control Technology Rule and 

to modify its technical justification to 

rely on CAIR and the Industrial Boiler 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) rule. Further, on 

April 13, 2012, FDEP submitted a draft 

SIP revision to evaluate BART and 

reasonable progress provisions for 

several of Florida’s EGUs. 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

Florida has three Class I areas where 

visibility is an important value within 

its borders: Everglades National Park, 

Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, and 

Saint (St.) Marks Wilderness Area. 

Florida is responsible for developing a 

regional haze SIP that addresses these 

Class I areas and for consulting with 

other states whose sources impact the 

areas. 

The Florida regional haze SIP 

establishes RPGs for visibility 

improvement at Everglades National 

Park, Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, 

and St. Marks Wilderness Area, and a 

LTS to achieve those RPGs within the 

first regional haze implementation 

period. In developing the LTS for the 

areas, Florida considered both 

emissions sources inside and outside of 

Florida that may cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in Florida’s Class 

I areas. The State also identified and 

considered emissions sources within 

Florida that may cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in Class I areas in 

neighboring states as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO 

worked with the State in developing the 

technical analyses used to make these 

determinations, including state-by-state 

contributions to visibility impairment in 

specific Class I areas, which included 

the Class I areas in Florida and those 

areas affected by emissions from 

Florida. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

As required by the RHR and in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, Florida calculated 

baseline/current and natural visibility 

conditions for its Class I areas, as 

summarized below. 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Natural background visibility, as 

defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance, is estimated by calculating 

the expected light extinction using 

default estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components adjusted by site-specific 

estimates of humidity. This calculation 

uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a 

formula for estimating light extinction 

from the estimated natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components (or from components 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31247 

10The IMPROVE program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

federal agencies (including representatives from 

EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE 

monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid 

the creation of Federal and State implementation 

plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. 

One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify 

chemical species and emission sources responsible 

for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. 

The IMPROVE program has also been a key 

participant in visibility-related research, including 

the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 11The science behind the revised IMPROVE 

equation is summarized in Appendix B.2 of the 

March 19, 2010, Florida regional haze submittal and 

in numerous published papers. See for example: 

Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the 

IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light 

Extinction Coefficients—Final Report. March 2006. 

Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State 

University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the 

Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. http:// 

vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/ 

GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/ 

IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 

2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the 

New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species 

Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 

Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO 

Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 

2006 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ 

Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). 

As documented in EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states 

to use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative 

approaches to 2003 EPA guidance to 

estimate the values that characterize the 

natural visibility conditions of the Class 

I areas. One alternative approach is to 

develop and justify the use of 

alternative estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components. Another alternative is to 

use the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that 

was adopted for use by the IMPROVE 

Steering Committee in December 

2005.10 The purpose of this refinement 

to the ‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to 

provide more accurate estimates of the 

various factors that affect the calculation 

of light extinction. Florida opted to use 

this refined approach, referred to as the 

‘‘new IMPROVE equation,’’ for its Class 

I areas. 

Natural visibility conditions using the 

new IMPROVE equation were calculated 

separately for each Class I area by 

VISTAS. Natural background visibility, 

as defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, is estimated by 

calculating the expected light extinction 

using default estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components adjusted by site-specific 

estimates of humidity. 

The new IMPROVE equation takes 

into account the most recent review of 

the science 11 and it accounts for the 

effect of particle size distribution on 

light extinction efficiency of sulfate, 

nitrate, and organic carbon. It also 

adjusts the mass multiplier for organic 

carbon (particulate organic matter) by 

increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms 

are added to the equation to account for 

light extinction by sea salt and light 

absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. 

Site-specific values are used for 

Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light 

due to atmospheric gases) to account for 

the site-specific effects of elevation and 

temperature. Separate relative humidity 

enhancement factors are used for small 

and large size distributions of 

ammonium sulfate and ammonium 

nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 

remaining contributors, elemental 

carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 

soil, and coarse mass terms, do not 

change between the original and new 

IMPROVE equations. 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

FDEP estimated baseline visibility 

conditions at Florida’s Class I areas 

using available monitoring data from 

IMPROVE monitoring sites in 

Everglades National Park, 

Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, and 

St. Marks Wilderness Area. IMPROVE 

data records for the Everglades had four 

years of complete data and no 

substitution of data was made. However, 

Chassahowitzka and St. Marks both 

required data substitution to make their 

records complete. This substitution was 

made in accordance with EPA guidance 

for tracking progress which can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ 

t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf. As 

explained in section IV.B, baseline 

visibility conditions are the same as 

current conditions for the first regional 

haze SIP. A five-year average of the 2000 

to 2004 monitoring data was calculated 

for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 

percent best visibility days at the 

Florida Class I areas. Appendix B of the 

Florida regional haze SIP presents the 

data and calculations for the 20 percent 

best and worst days for the baseline 

period of 2000–2004 for the three Class 

I areas in Florida. This data is also 

provided at the following Web site: 

http://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/ 

SesarmBext_20BW.htm. 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

Baseline visibility on the 20 percent 

worst days is better at Everglades (22.3 

deciviews) than Chassahowitzka (25.7 

deciviews) or St. Marks (26.3 

deciviews). On the other hand, natural 

background visibility is slightly worse 

for Everglades (12.1 deciviews) than 

either Chassahowitzka (11.0 deciviews) 

or St. Marks (11.7 deciviews). The 

natural and baseline conditions for 

Florida’s Class I areas for both the 20 

percent worst and best days are 

presented in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR THE FLORIDA CLASS I AREAS

Class I areas 

Average for 

20 percent 

worst days 

(dv12) 

Average for 

20 percent 

best days 

(dv) 

Natural Background Conditions 

Everglades National Park ........................................................................................................................ 12.1 5.2 

Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area ........................................................................................................... 11.0 5.9 

St. Marks Wilderness Area ...................................................................................................................... 11.7 5.4 

Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000–2004) 

Everglades National Park ........................................................................................................................ 22.3 11.7 

Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area ........................................................................................................... 25.7 15.5 

St. Marks Wilderness Area ...................................................................................................................... 26.3 14.4 

12The term, ‘‘dv,’’ is the abbreviation for ‘‘deciview.’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31248 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

In setting the RPGs, Florida 

considered the uniform rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (‘‘glidepath’’) and 

the emission reduction measures 

needed to achieve that rate of progress 

over the period of the SIP to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in 

EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance 

document, the uniform rate of progress 

is not a presumptive target, and RPGs 

may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to 

the glidepath. 

Florida’s SIP presents two sets of 

graphs for its Class I areas, one for the 

20 percent best days and one for the 20 

percent worst days. Florida constructed 

the graph for the worst days (i.e., the 

glidepath) in accordance with EPA’s 

2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by 

plotting a straight graphical line from 

the baseline level of visibility 

impairment for 2000–2004 to the level 

of visibility conditions representing no 

anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for 

its areas. For the best days, the graph 

includes a horizontal straight line 

spanning from baseline conditions in 

2004 out to 2018 to depict no 

degradation in visibility over the 

implementation period of the SIP. 

Florida’s SIP shows that the State’s 

RPGs for its areas provide for 

improvement in visibility for the 20 

percent worst days over the period of 

the implementation plan and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the 20 

percent best days over the same period, 

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). 

For the Everglades National Park, the 

overall visibility improvement 

necessary to reach natural conditions is 

the difference between baseline 

visibility of 22.30 deciviews for the 20 

percent worst days and natural 

conditions of 12.09 deciviews, i.e., 

10.21 deciviews. Over the 60-year 

period from 2004 to 2064, this would 

require an average improvement of 

0.170 deciview per year to reach natural 

conditions. Hence, for the 14-year 

period from 2004 to 2018, in order to 

achieve visibility improvements at least 

equivalent to the uniform rate of 

progress for the 20 percent worst days 

at Everglades National Park, Florida 

would need to project at least 2.380 

deciviews over the first implementation 

period (i.e., 0.170 deciview × 14 years = 

2.380 deciviews) of visibility 

improvement from the 22.3 deciviews 

baseline in 2004, resulting in visibility 

levels at or below 19.92 deciviews in 

2018. Similarly, Chassahowitzka 

Wilderness Area would need a 0.245 

deciview annual improvement over the 

14-year first implementation period or 

3.435 deciview improvement from a 

baseline of 25.75 deciviews to 22.31 

deciviews in 2018 and St. Marks 

Wilderness Area would need a 0.244 

deciview annual improvement over the 

14-year first implementation period or 

3.416 deciview improvement from a 

baseline of 26.31 deciviews to 22.89 

deciviews in 2018. 

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

As described in section IV.E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by 

the state for achieving its RPGs. 

Florida’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from federal, state, 

and local controls that take effect in the 

State from the end of the baseline period 

starting in 2004 until 2018. The Florida 

LTS was developed by the State, in 

coordination with the VISTAS RPO, 

through an evaluation of the following 

components: (1) Identification of the 

emissions units within Florida and in 

surrounding states that likely have the 

largest impacts currently on visibility at 

the State’s Class I areas; (2) estimation 

of emissions reductions for 2018 based 

on all controls required or expected 

under federal and state regulations for 

the 2004–2018 period (including 

BART); (3) comparison of projected 

visibility improvement with the uniform 

rate of progress for the State’s Class I 

areas; and (4) application of the four 

statutory factors in the reasonable 

progress analysis for the identified 

emissions units to determine if 

additional reasonable controls were 

required. 

In a separate action proposing limited 

disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of 

a number of states, EPA noted that these 

states relied on the trading programs of 

CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement 

and the requirement for a LTS sufficient 

to achieve the state-adopted reasonable 

progress goals. See 76 FR 82219 

(December 30, 2011). In that action, EPA 

proposed a limited disapproval of 

Florida’s regional haze SIP submittal 

insofar as the SIP relied on CAIR. For 

that reason, EPA is not taking action on 

that aspect of Florida’s regional haze SIP 

in this action. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses was 

developed by VISTAS with assistance 

from Florida. The 2018 emissions 

inventory was developed by projecting 

2002 emissions and applying reductions 

expected from Federal and state 

regulations affecting the emissions of 

VOC and the visibility-impairing 

pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. The 

BART Guidelines direct states to 

exercise judgment in deciding whether 

VOC and NH3 impair visibility in their 

Class I area(s). As discussed further in 

section V.C.3, VISTAS performed 

modeling sensitivity analyses which 

demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of VOC and NH3 do not 

significantly impair visibility in the 

VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions 

inventories were also developed for NH3

and VOC, and applicable federal VOC 

reductions were incorporated into 

Florida’s regional haze analyses, Florida 

did not further evaluate NH3 and VOC 

emissions sources for potential controls 

under BART or reasonable progress. 

VISTAS developed emissions for five 

inventory source classifications: 

Stationary point and area sources, offroad and on-road mobile sources, and 

biogenic sources. Stationary point 

sources are those sources that emit 

greater than a specified tonnage per 

year, depending on the pollutant, with 

data provided at the facility level. 

Stationary area sources are those 

sources whose individual emissions are 

relatively small, but due to the large 

number of these sources, the collective 

emissions from the source category 

could be significant. VISTAS estimated 

emissions on a countywide level for the 

inventory categories of: (a) Stationary 

area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) 

mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can 

move but does not use the roadways); 

and (c) biogenic sources (which are 

natural sources of emissions, such as 

trees). On-road mobile source emissions 

are estimated by vehicle type and road 

type, and are summed to the 

countywide level. 

There are many federal and state 

control programs being implemented 

that VISTAS and Florida anticipate will 

reduce emissions between the end of the 

baseline period and 2018. Emissions 

reductions from these control programs 

are projected to achieve substantial 

visibility improvement by 2018 in the 

Florida Class I areas. The control 

programs relied upon by Florida include 

CAIR; EPA’s NOX SIP Call; North 

Carolina’s Clean Smokestacks Act; 

consent decrees for Tampa Electric, 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Gulf Power-Plant Crist; NOX and/or 

VOC reductions from the control rules 

in 1-hour ozone SIPs for Atlanta, 

Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky; 

North Carolina’s NOX Reasonably 

Available Control Technology rule for 

Philip Morris USA and Norandal USA 

in the Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock Hill 

1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area; 

federal 2007 heavy duty diesel engine 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31249 

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

2007). 

standards for on-road trucks and buses; 

federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for onroad vehicles; federal large spark 

ignition and recreational vehicle 

controls; and EPA’s non-road diesel 

rules. Controls from various federal 

MACT rules were also utilized in the 

development of the 2018 emission 

inventory projections. These MACT 

rules include the industrial boiler/ 

process heater MACT (referred to as 

‘‘Industrial Boiler MACT’’), the 

combustion turbine and reciprocating 

internal combustion engines MACTs, 

and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year 

MACT standards. 

Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. 

Circuit mandated the vacatur and 

remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT 

Rule.13 This MACT was vacated since it 

was directly affected by the vacatur and 

remand of the Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator 

Definition Rule. EPA proposed a new 

Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address 

the vacatur on June 4, 2010, (75 FR 

32006) and issued a final rule on March 

21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The VISTAS 

modeling included emissions 

reductions from the vacated Industrial 

Boiler MACT rule, and Florida did not 

redo its modeling analysis when the 

rule was re-issued. Even though 

Florida’s modeling is based on the 

vacated Industrial Boiler MACT limits, 

the State’s modeling conclusions are 

unlikely to be affected because the 

expected reductions due to the vacated 

rule were relatively small compared to 

the State’s total SO2, PM2.5, and coarse 

particulate matter (PM10) emissions in 

2018 (i.e., 0.1 to 2.5 percent, depending 

on the pollutant, of the projected 2018 

SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 inventory). Thus, 

EPA does not expect that differences 

between the vacated and final Industrial 

Boiler MACT emissions limits would 

affect the adequacy of the existing 

Florida regional haze SIP. If there is a 

need to address discrepancies between 

projected emissions reductions from the 

vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and the 

Industrial Boiler MACT issued March 

21, 2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects 

Florida to do so in the State’s five-year 

progress report. 

Below in Tables 2 and 3 are 

summaries of the 2002 baseline and 

2018 estimated emission inventories for 

Florida. 

TABLE 2—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR FLORIDA

[tons per year (tpy)] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ................................................................................. 40,995 302,833 46,147 57,244 1,657 518,721 

Area .................................................................................. 404,302 28,872 58,878 443,346 37,446 40,491 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 520,757 460,503 7,779 11,148 17,922 20,687 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................... 272,072 180,627 17,415 18,281 134 20,614 

Fires ................................................................................. 42,724 15,942 75,717 85,263 3,102 4,057 

Biogenic ........................................................................... 1,522,031 36,320 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................................................................... 2,802,881 1,025,097 205,936 615,282 60,261 604,570 

TABLE 3—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR FLORIDA (TPY) 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ................................................................................. 45,233 126,542 46,316 56,478 4,805 213,387 

Area .................................................................................. 489,975 30,708 72,454 578,516 40,432 38,317 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 219,554 148,486 3,994 8,178 25,885 2,506 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................... 183,452 127,885 11,868 12,497 171 7,536 

Fires ................................................................................. 51,527 19,791 88,756 98,470 3,157 4,129 

Biogenic ........................................................................... 1,522,031 36,320 0 0 0 0 

Total ................................................................................. 2,511,772 489,732 223,388 754,139 74,450 265,875 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

VISTAS performed modeling for the 

regional haze LTS for the 10 

southeastern states, including Florida. 

The modeling analysis is a complex 

technical evaluation that began with 

selection of the modeling system. 

VISTAS used the following modeling 

system: 

• Meteorological Model: The 

Pennsylvania State University/National 

Center for Atmospheric Research 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a 

nonhydrostatic, prognostic, 

meteorological model routinely used for 

urban- and regional- scale 

photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze 

regulatory modeling studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

modeling system is an emissions 

modeling system that generates hourly 

gridded speciated emission inputs of 

mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, 

fire, and biogenic emission sources for 

photochemical grid models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. The 

photochemical model selected for this 

study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was 

modified through VISTAS with a 

module for Secondary Organics 

Aerosols in an open and transparent 

manner that was also subjected to 

outside peer review. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12x12 

kilometer cells that covers the 10 

VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Virginia, West Virginia) and states 

adjacent to them. This grid is nested 

within a larger national CMAQ 

modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer grid 

cells that covers the continental United 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31250 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

States, portions of Canada and Mexico, 

and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans along the east and west coasts. 

Selection of a representative period of 

meteorology is crucial for evaluating 

baseline air quality conditions and 

projecting future changes in air quality 

due to changes in emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants. VISTAS 

conducted an in-depth analysis which 

resulted in the selection of the entire 

year of 2002 (January 1–December 31) as 

the best period of meteorology available 

for conducting the CMAQ modeling. 

The VISTAS states modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 

located at http://www.epa.gov/

scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-guidance.pdf, (EPA–454/B–07–002), 

April 2007, and the EPA document, 

Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Regional Haze Regulations, located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/

eiguid/index.html, EPA–454/R–05–001, 

August 2005, updated November 2005 

(‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’). 

VISTAS examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once VISTAS determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

VISTAS used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), Florida provided the 

appropriate supporting documentation 

for all required analyses used to 

determine the State’s LTS. The technical 

analyses and modeling used to develop 

the glidepath and to support the LTS are 

consistent with EPA’s RHR and interim 

and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA 

accepts the VISTAS technical modeling 

to support the LTS and determine 

visibility improvement for the uniform 

rate of progress because the modeling 

system was chosen and simulated 

according to EPA Modeling Guidance. 

EPA proposes to agree with the VISTAS 

model performance procedures and 

results, and that CMAQ is an 

appropriate tool for the regional haze 

assessments for the Florida LTS and 

regional haze SIP. 

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, source sectors, and 

geographic areas, VISTAS developed 

emission sensitivity model runs using 

CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air 

quality impacts from various groups of 

emissions and pollutant scenarios in the 

Class I areas on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

VISTAS region, VISTAS’ contribution 

assessment, based on IMPROVE 

monitoring data, demonstrated that 

ammonium sulfate is the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 

2000–2004, ammonium sulfate 

accounted for 75 to 87 percent of the 

calculated light extinction at the inland 

Class I areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 

percent of the calculated light extinction 

for all but one of the coastal Class I areas 

in the VISTAS states. In contrast, 

ammonium nitrate contributed five 

percent or less of the calculated light 

extinction at the VISTAS Class I areas 

on the 20 percent worst visibility days. 

Particulate organic matter (organic 

carbon) accounted for 20 percent or less 

of the light extinction on the 20 percent 

worst visibility days at the VISTAS 

Class I areas. In particular, for 

Chassahowitzka and St. Marks 

Wilderness Areas, sulfate particles 

resulting from SO2 emissions contribute 

roughly 71 percent to the calculated 

light extinction on the haziest days. The 

Everglades National Park is somewhat 

different than any of the other Class I 

areas in the VISTAS area with a greater 

relative influence from organic carbon. 

The ammonium sulfate contribution, 

while still significant, was only 40 

percent of the calculated light extinction 

on the haziest days while organic 

carbon accounted for 45 percent. 

VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas 

into two types, either ‘‘coastal’’ or 

‘‘inland’’ (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘mountain’’) sites, based on common/ 

similar characteristics (e.g., terrain, 

geography, meteorology), to better 

represent variations in model sensitivity 

and performance within the VISTAS 

region, and to describe the common 

factors influencing visibility conditions 

in the two types of Class I areas. 

Florida’s Class I areas are ‘‘coastal’’ 

areas. 

Results from VISTAS’ emission 

sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate 

particles resulting from SO2 emissions 

are the dominant contributor to 

visibility impairment on the 20 percent 

worst days at all Class I areas in 

VISTAS, including the Florida areas. 

Florida concluded that reducing SO2

emissions from EGU and non-EGU point 

sources in the VISTAS states would 

have the greatest visibility benefits for 

the Florida Class I areas. Because 

ammonium nitrate is a small contributor 

to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment 

on the 20 percent worst days at the 

coastal Class I areas in VISTAS, the 

benefits of reducing NOX and NH3

emissions at these sites are small. 

The VISTAS sensitivity analyses 

show that VOC emissions from biogenic 

sources such as vegetation also 

contribute to visibility impairment. 

However, control of these biogenic 

sources of VOC would be extremely 

difficult, if not impossible. The 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions are minor compared to the 

biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions would have little if any 

visibility benefits at the Class I areas in 

the VISTAS region, including Florida. 

The sensitivity analyses also show that 

reducing organic carbon from point 

sources, ground level sources, or fires is 

projected to have small to no visibility 

benefit at the VISTAS Class I areas. 

Florida considered the factors listed 

in under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) and in 

section IV.E of this action to develop its 

LTS as described below. Florida, in 

conjunction with VISTAS, 

demonstrated in its SIP that elemental 

carbon (a product of highway and nonroad diesel engines, agricultural 

burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires), 

fine soils (a product of construction 

activities and activities that generate 

fugitive dust), and ammonia are 

relatively minor contributors to 

visibility impairment at the Class I areas 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31251 

14Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated 

in a voluntary regional partnership ‘‘to identify and 

recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing 

and prevent future adverse effects from humaninduced air pollution on the air quality related 

values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.’’ 

States cooperated with FLMs, EPA, industry, 

environmental organizations, and academia to 

complete a technical assessment of the impacts of 

acid deposition, ozone, and fine particles on 

sensitive resources in the Southern Appalachians. 

The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August 

2002. 

in Florida. Florida considered 

agricultural and forestry smoke 

management techniques to address 

visibility impacts from elemental 

carbon. With regard to smoke 

management, Florida has a certified 

Smoke Management Plan (SMP) meeting 

the intent of EPA’s 1998 Interim Air 

Quality Policy on Wildland and 

Prescribed Fires available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

firefnl.pdf. EPA Region 4 acknowledged 

receipt of this SMP and its certification 

in February 2002. The SMP follows the 

requirements for such a plan contained 

in EPA’s Interim Air Quality Policy on 

Wildland and Prescribed Fires. The 

Florida Division of Forestry operates a 

burn authorization program that 

considers the potential for smoke from 

the burn impacting smoke sensitive 

receptors (e.g., airports, roads, hospitals, 

urban areas). The SMP provides 

alternatives for burning and is 

considerate of minimizing air 

pollutants. With regard to fine soils, the 

State considered those activities that 

generate fugitive dust, including 

construction activities. With regard to 

the impact of construction activities, 

rule 62–296.320, F.A.C., General 

Pollution Emission Limiting Standards, 

addresses construction related activities. 

In particular, section (4)(c) of the rule, 

Unconfined Emissions of Particulate 

Matter, provides that reasonable 

precautions be taken to prevent or 

eliminate emissions. For example, the 

rule addresses paving and maintenance 

of roads, parking areas, and yards and 

the application of water or chemicals to 

control emissions during construction. 

With regard to ammonia, the State has 

chosen not to develop controls for 

ammonia emissions from Florida 

sources in this first implementation 

period because of its relatively minor 

contribution to visibility impairment. 

EPA proposes to concur with the State’s 

technical demonstration showing that 

elemental carbon, fine soils, and 

ammonia are not significant 

contributors to visibility in the State’s 

Class I areas, and therefore, proposes to 

find that Florida has adequately 

satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by VISTAS predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

VISTAS region, more than any other 

controllable visibility-impairing 

pollutant. The VISTAS sensitivity 

analysis projects visibility benefits in all 

three of Florida’s Class I areas from SO2

reductions from EGUs in nearby 

VISTAS states. Additional, smaller 

benefits are projected from SO2

emissions reductions from non-utility 

industrial point sources. SO2 emissions 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from other RPO regions are substantial 

in comparison to the VISTAS states’ 

contributions, and thus, controlling 

sources outside of the VISTAS region is 

predicted to provide significant 

improvements in visibility in the Class 

I areas in VISTAS. 

Taking the VISTAS sensitivity 

analyses results into consideration, 

Florida concluded that the greatest 

visibility benefits on the 20 percent 

worst days for the Florida Class I areas 

and Okefenokee in Georgia are projected 

to result from further reducing SO2 from 

EGUs. The Everglades is somewhat 

different than any of the other Class I 

areas in the VISTAS area with a greater 

relative influence from carbon (VOC) 

and boundary conditions. Contributions 

from other RPOs are comparatively 

small, and the greatest benefits would 

likely be from further EGU reductions 

within Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. 

Additional benefits are projected from 

SO2 emission reductions from nonutility, industrial point sources. The 

pattern of relative SO2 contributions 

from non-EGUs among the various 

VISTAS states is similar to the pattern 

of relative SO2 contributions from EGUs. 

The State chose to focus solely on 

evaluating certain SO2 sources 

contributing to visibility impairment to 

the State’s Class I areas for additional 

emissions reductions for reasonable 

progress in this first implementation 

period (described in sections V.C.4 and 

V.C.5 of this action). EPA proposes to 

agree with the State’s analyses and 

conclusions used to determine the 

pollutants and source categories that 

most contribute to visibility impairment 

in the Class I areas, and proposes to find 

the State’s approach to focus on 

developing a LTS that includes largely 

additional measures for point sources of 

SO2 emissions to be appropriate. 

SO2 sources for which it is 

demonstrated that no additional 

controls are reasonable in this current 

implementation period will not be 

exempted from future assessments for 

controls in subsequent implementation 

periods or, when appropriate, from the 

five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future 

implementation periods, additional 

controls on these SO2 sources evaluated 

in the first implementation period may 

be determined to be reasonable, based 

on a reasonable progress control 

evaluation, for continued progress 

toward natural conditions for the 20 

percent worst days and to avoid further 

degradation of the 20 percent best days. 

Similarly, in subsequent 

implementation periods, the State may 

use different criteria for identifying 

sources for evaluation and may consider 

other pollutants as visibility conditions 

change over time. 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in Florida and Surrounding 

Areas 

As discussed in section V.C.3 of this 

action, through comprehensive 

evaluations by VISTAS and the 

Southern Appalachian Mountains 

Initiative (SAMI),14 the VISTAS states 

concluded that sulfate particles 

resulting from SO2 emissions account 

for the greatest portion of the regional 

haze affecting the Class I areas in 

VISTAS states, including those in 

Florida. Utility and non-utility boilers 

are the main sources of SO2 emissions 

within the southeastern United States. 

VISTAS developed a methodology or 

criteria for Florida, which enables the 

State to focus its reasonable progress 

analysis on those geographic regions 

and source categories that impact 

visibility at its Class I areas. 

Florida used the VISTAS criteria as a 

starting point for developing its own 

methodology. For reasons of better 

public clarity and understanding, 

Florida chose to develop a reasonable 

progress source selection metric of 

emissions (Q) divided by distance (d) 

from the Class I area or ‘‘Q/d’’ (i.e., 2002 

SO2 emissions in tons/distance in 

kilometers) that would have the effect of 

selecting a set of source units similar to 

that selected using the VISTAS criteria. 

Since visibility in Class I areas in or 

near Florida is expected to improve at 

very near the uniform rate of progress 

with current rules, Florida chose a 

minimum threshold for reasonable 

evaluation of sources of Q/d = 50. 

Sources of SO2 with a Q/d greater than 

or equal to 50 (‘‘Q/d ≥ 50’’) were 

considered eligible for a reasonable 

progress control evaluation. Use of this 

threshold to identify sources for 

evaluation for potential control under 

reasonable progress assures that many of 

the largest Florida sources of SO2

nearest Class I areas are required to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31252 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

determine reasonable progress, while 

smaller sources (not expected to provide 

significant, cost-effective reductions) are 

excluded. Similarly, Florida provided 

some bounds in the rule for emissions 

(Q) and distance (d) to affect which 

sources would be subject to a reasonable 

process analysis. First, Florida exempts 

small (less than 250 tpy SO2) units, the 

rationale being that any emissions 

reductions would be very small and 

likely not very cost effective. Second, 

Florida does not consider any sources 

outside of 300 kilometers from a Class 

I area. This threshold is consistent with 

the bounds used in the BART 

exemption analysis where only sources 

within this distance from a Class I area 

were considered. Third, Florida only 

considered sources that commenced 

construction or submitted a complete 

application prior to August 30, 1999, a 

date after which Florida permit review 

requires that visibility specifically be 

addressed. Florida concluded that any 

sources permitted after that 1999 date 

had already performed the equivalent of 

a reasonable progress review as part of 

its permitting process. Finally, Florida 

used the 2002 emissions for Q in the Q/ 

d analysis, whereas VISTAS used the 

projected 2018 emissions. This is 

important in Florida for two reasons. 

First, Florida updated some of the 

model projections concluding that many 

Florida utilities will convert all of their 

oil-fired boilers to natural gas with 

source-specific information to reflect 

current plans of these utilities. Second, 

Florida preferred to start with the 

known largest sources having the 

potential to impair visibility and make 

sure that these sources are addressed 

through reasonable progress rather than 

base its selection of sources for a 

reasonable progress control analysis on 

a model estimate of how emissions 

might be distributed. 

The Florida criterion (Q/d ≥ 50) 

captures for reasonable progress 

analyses the 1st through 9th, 15th, 18th, 

19th, 27th, and 30th largest SO2 sources 

(2002) in the State. When compared to 

the VISTAS criteria, Florida’s 

methodology captured 67.6 percent of 

the total point source SO2 contribution 

to visibility impairment in the VISTAS 

area of influence around each of the 

Class I areas, while the VISTAS criteria 

would require 70.5 percent of these SO2

emissions to be reviewed. EPA believes 

the approach developed by Florida for 

the Class I areas in Florida is a 

reasonable methodology to prioritize the 

most significant contributors to regional 

haze and to identify sources to assess for 

reasonable progress control in the 

State’s Class I areas. EPA proposes that 

the State’s approach is consistent with 

EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance 

and believes that the technical approach 

of Florida was objective and based on 

several analyses and compares well to 

the VISTAS methodology. 

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors 

in the Reasonable Progress Analysis 

FDEP identified 32 emissions units at 

14 facilities in Florida (see Table 4) with 

SO2 emissions that were above the 

state’s minimum threshold for 

reasonable progress evaluation because 

they were modeled to have a Q/d of at 

least 50. Thirty-one of these 32 

emissions units are EGUs that were 

already subject to CAIR. The reasonable 

progress analysis for these units is 

discussed in section IV.C.5.B of this 

action. FDEP identified only one unit 

not subject to CAIR at Rock Tenn that 

has a Q/d of at least 50. 

TABLE 4—FACILITIES SUBJECT TO REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS

Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to CAIR 

Rock Tenn (Jefferson Smurfit) unit 15 

Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to CAIR: 

City of Gainesville Deerhaven unit 5 

Florida Crushed Stone (Central Power and Lime) unit 18 

FP&L Manatee units 1, 2 

FL&L Port Everglades units 3, 4 

FP&L Turkey Point units 1, 2 

Gulf Power Crist unit 7 

Lakeland Electric CD McIntosh unit 6 

JEA Northside/SJRPP units 3, 16, 17, 27 

Progress Energy Anclote units 1, 2 

Progress Energy Bartow units 1, 2, 3 

Progress Energy Crystal River units 1, 2, 3, 4 

Seminole Electric Cooperative units 1, 2 

Tampa Electric Gannon units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 

In its April 13, 2012, amendment, as 

summarized in Table 5, FDEP 

documented that nine of the identified 

EGUs have shut down, two others will 

be shut down by December 31, 2013, 

and two others have taken Federally 

enforceable permit limits that reduce 

their contribution to regional haze 

below Florida’s threshold for reasonable 

progress analysis. The remaining 19 

units will be addressed in later actions. 

TABLE 5—FACILITIES WITH UNIT(S) SUBJECT TO CAIR THAT HAVE SHUT DOWN, WILL SHUT DOWN BY DECEMBER 31, 

2013, OR THAT HAVE ACCEPTED ENFORCEABLE EMISSIONS LIMITS

Shut Down: 

Progress Energy Bartow units 1, 2, 3 

Tampa Electric Gannon units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 

To Be Shut Down by December 31, 2013: 

FP&L Port Everglades units 3, 4 

Not Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis Due to Enforceable Emissions Limits: 

Florida Crushed Stone unit 18 

JEA Northside unit 27 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31253 

15Although EPA stayed the Industrial Boiler 

MACT rule pending reconsideration of additional 

data, EPA expects to take final action to address this 

data by the end of May 2012. A revised proposal 

was published December 23, 2011. 76 FR 80598. 

The stay does not affect any of the conclusions 

related to reasonable progress. 

16The BART Guidelines specifically address 

consideration of MACT standards and streamlined 

control analyses when the most stringent controls 

are in place. 70 FR 39163, 39165. Although this 

facility was evaluated for reasonable progress rather 

than BART, many of the same considerations are 

appropriate. 

17 Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers 

and Process Heaters (Docket# EPA–HQ–OAR–2002– 

0058), Boiler MACT/Impacts Memo & Appendices, 

Appendix A–3: Existing Major Source Boiler and 

Process Heater Cost Detail (Recommended Option), 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html. 

a. Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to 

CAIR 

Florida chose to rely on the Industrial 

Boiler MACT, which was promulgated 

on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608),15 in 

the reasonable progress analysis at Rock 

Tenn (Smurfit Stone) unit 15. This rule 

will require reductions in acid gases 

that will have the co-benefit of reducing 

SO2 emissions either through the use of 

scrubbers or fuel switching. The Rock 

Tenn (formerly Smurfit-Stone and 

Jefferson Smurfit) facility in Fernandina 

Beach, one of the listed reasonable 

progress sources subject to reasonable 

progress analysis, is subject to the 

Industrial Boiler MACT rule. 

The State’s demonstration is a 

streamlined control analysis showing 

that regulations requiring the most 

stringent level of controls have been 

adopted for unit 15, and thus, the State 

did not review the remaining statutory 

factors for reasonable progress.16 Florida 

concluded that any source subject to 

MACT standards must meet a level of 

control that is as stringent as the bestcontrolled 12 percent of sources in the 

industry. In this case, although the 

MACT standard is for acid gases rather 

than for SO2, FDEP concluded that it is 

unlikely that the State will identify SO2

emission controls more stringent than 

what the MACT standards will require 

that would be considered reasonable for 

this facility under reasonable progress. 

Since the industrial boiler MACT 

standard only addresses SO2 as a cobenefit, EPA would not ordinarily rely 

on the industrial boiler MACT standard 

in lieu of a more formal analysis. 

Therefore, EPA reviewed the supporting 

documentation regarding the emissions 

controls projected necessary to comply 

with the MACT standard for this unit. 

The facility can pursue a number of 

options, including Dry Sorbent 

Injection/Fabric Filter (DIFF), wet 

scrubbing, or conversion to natural gas 

to meet the MACT standards. The 

supporting technical information 

document for the industrial boiler 

MACT standard concluded that the least 

cost option for this unit to meet the 

MACT standard would be DIFF, and 

projected the need to install DIFF with 

a total capital control cost of 

$35,244,447 and a total annual control 

cost of $10,084,579.17 SO2 emissions are 

projected to be reduced 68.6 percent. A 

wet scrubber, which was not projected 

to be needed to meet the MACT 

standard for this unit, could reduce 

emissions by 95 percent, although at a 

significantly higher cost. 

From Florida’s reasonable progress 

assessment, it appears that the 2002 

emissions for this unit were 3,242 tons 

of SO2 per year and the Q/d was 50.2, 

just over Florida’s threshold of 50 for RP 

during this planning period. Based on 

the expected reduction of 68.6 percent 

from this baseline, the facility would 

reduce actual emissions by 2,224 tons 

per year. The resulting estimated cost 

effectiveness of DIFF for SO2 is over 

$4,500 per ton of SO2 removed for this 

facility. Further, installation of this 

control technology would bring the 

facility’s Q/d well below FDEP’s 

threshold of 50. While a wet scrubber 

would result in a greater emissions 

reduction, its annual costs are 

anticipated to be substantially higher 

and less cost effective. Accordingly, 

EPA proposes to approve Florida’s 

approach for the Rock Tenn (SmurfitStone) facility in Fernandina Beach as 

being appropriate for this facility for 

reasonable progress during this 

planning period because EPA proposes 

to agree that it will be unlikely that even 

if Florida prepared a four factor 

analysis, it would identify SO2 emission 

controls that are more stringent than 

what the MACT standards will require. 

EPA expects the state to review the 

status of the facility’s progress toward 

installing SO2 controls as part of the 

five-year interim progress reporting 

requirements. 

b. Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to 

CAIR 

Thirty-one of the 32 emissions units 

identified for a reasonable progress 

control analysis are EGUs. Two of these 

units, Florida Crushed Stone (Central 

Power and Lime) unit 18 and JEA 

Northside unit 27, have taken federally 

enforceable permit conditions that limit 

SO2 emissions so that they are not 

subject to reasonable progress analysis. 

Florida Crushed Stone (Central Power 

and Lime) unit 18 is a coal-fired power 

plant which is being converted to a 

biomass fired boiler. It has received a 

construction permit that will prohibit 

the firing of coal once it is converted. 

Start up, shut down, and bed 

stabilization will use ultra low sulfur 

distillate oil. The maximum allowed 

annual SO2 emissions are now limited 

to 591.3 tpy. 

JEA Northside unit 27 is a circulating 

fluidized bed boiler. In 2009, this 

facility received a federally enforceable 

permit condition that limits emissions 

to 0.2 pounds per million British 

Thermal Units (lb/MMBtu) on a 24-hour 

average and 0.15 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day 

rolling average resulting a maximum 

annual emission rate of 1,816 tons. 

These limits reduce the Q/d to 26.4 and 

26.2, respectively, for the two emissions 

limits identified above. Hence, Florida 

determined that the unit does not 

require a reasonable progress control 

analysis. 

Eleven EGUs are either shut down or 

will be shut down by December 31, 

2013. The remaining 18 EGUs, located 

at ten facilities, are: City of Deerhaven 

unit 5; FP&L Manatee units 1, 2; FP&L 

Turkey Point units 1, 2; Gulf Power 

Crist unit 7; JEA Northside/SJRPP unit 

3; Lakeland Electric CD McIntosh unit 6; 

Progress Energy Anclote units 1, 2; 

Progress Energy Crystal River units 1, 2, 

3, 4; St. Johns River units 16, 17; and 

Seminole Electric Cooperative units 1, 

2. 

Florida evaluated the SO2 reductions 

expected from the EGU sector in its 

submittal to determine whether any 

additional controls beyond those 

required by CAIR would be considered 

reasonable for Florida’s EGUs for the 

first implementation period. All EGU 

sources identified as subject to 

reasonable progress review were also 

subject to CAIR. For EGUs subject to 

CAIR, Florida relied on EPA’s 

evaluation of a number of factors, 

including the cost of compliance and 

the time necessary for compliance. In 

the CAIR, EPA determined that the 

earliest reasonable deadline for 

compliance with the final highly cost 

effective control levels for reducing 

emissions was 2015 (70 FR 25197– 

25198, May 12, 2005). Florida believes 

that the cost of compliance and the time 

necessary for compliance are the 

dominant factors for determining if 

additional reductions would be 

reasonable from CAIR sources. Based on 

detailed analyses in the May 12, 2005, 

CAIR rule, Florida concluded that CAIR 

controls satisfy reasonable progress for 

SO2 for the first implementation period 

ending in 2018. Since CAIR was 

developed using processes similar to the 

regional haze four-factor approach, 

Florida believes it is reasonable to 

accept that CAIR satisfies reasonable 

progress requirements for CAIR-subject 

sources. Since the rate of visibility 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31254 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

18Note that EPA’s reference to CALPUFF 

encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, 

which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST models and other pre and post 

processors. The different versions of CALPUFF 

have corresponding versions of CALMET, 

CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with 

previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer 

version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 

older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 

of the CALPUFF modeling system are available 

from the model developer on the following Web 

site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/ 

download.htm. 

improvement in all of the Class I areas 

in and adjacent to Florida is consistent 

with the uniform rate of progress, 

Florida asserted that reasonable progress 

was met for the subject sources with 

CAIR. 

Many of the emission units subject to 

reasonable progress analysis, as defined 

above, either have already reduced SO2

emissions or will be reducing SO2

emissions soon. Even though CAIR is 

not expected to continue to be in effect 

indefinitely, SO2 emissions reduction 

programs are well underway to meeting 

the amount needed to reach the 2018 

projection. These reductions have come 

about from company decisions to shut 

down or re-power certain units, or to 

install new control equipment 

(scrubbers) in response to the CAIR 

regulations. On August 8, 2011, EPA 

published the Transport Rule, which 

replaced CAIR. As under CAIR, EPA 

determined in the Transport Rule that 

Florida is contributing to ozone air 

quality exceedences in other states. 

However, unlike CAIR, EPA determined 

in the Transport Rule that Florida is 

contributing to SO2 exceedances in 

other states. As a result, the Florida 

facilities with EGUs that previously 

relied on CAIR to satisfy their 

reasonable progress assessment 

obligations for SO2 will be neither 

subject to CAIR nor able to rely on its 

successor, the Transport Rule, to meet 

their reasonable progress assessment 

requirements. 

Florida is in the process of 

reevaluating the reasonable progress 

determinations for these remaining 

facilities’ 18 EGUs and plans to address 

most of them in a subsequent SIP 

amendment. For this reason, EPA is 

taking no action on the determinations 

for these 18 EGUs at this time. EPA will 

address these emissions units in 

separate actions. 

6. BART 

BART is an element of Florida’s LTS 

for the first implementation period. The 

BART evaluation process consists of 

three components: (a) an identification 

of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) an 

assessment of whether the BARTeligible sources are subject to BART, 

and (c) a determination of the BART 

controls. These components, as 

addressed by FDEP, are discussed as 

follows. 

a. BART-Eligible Sources 

The first phase of a BART evaluation 

is to identify all of the BART-eligible 

sources within the state’s boundaries. 

FDEP identified the BART-eligible 

sources in Florida by utilizing the three 

eligibility criteria in the BART 

Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA’s 

regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or 

more emissions units at the facility fit 

within one of the 26 categories listed in 

the BART Guidelines; (2) the emissions 

units were not in operation prior to 

August 7, 1962, and were in existence 

on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or 

more per year of any visibility-impairing 

pollutant. 

The BART Guidelines also direct 

states to address SO2, NOX, and direct 

PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5) 

emissions as visibility-impairment 

pollutants and to exercise judgment in 

determining whether VOC or ammonia 

emissions from a source impair 

visibility in an area. See 70 FR 39160. 

VISTAS modeling demonstrated that 

VOC from anthropogenic sources and 

ammonia from point sources are not 

significant visibility-impairing 

pollutants in Florida, as discussed in 

section V.C.3. of this action. FDEP has 

determined, based on the VISTAS 

modeling, that ammonia emissions from 

the State’s point sources are not 

anticipated to cause or contribute 

significantly to any impairment of 

visibility in Class I areas and should be 

exempt for BART purposes. 

b. BART-Subject Sources 

The second phase of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e., those sources that are subject to 

BART. The BART Guidelines allow 

states to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, Florida required each 

of its BART-eligible sources to develop 

and submit dispersion modeling to 

assess the extent of their contribution to 

visibility impairment at surrounding 

Class I areas. 

i. Modeling Methodology 

The BART Guidelines allow states to 

use the CALPUFF 18 modeling system 

(CALPUFF) or another appropriate 

model to predict the visibility impacts 

from a single source on a Class I area, 

and therefore, to determine whether an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to 

BART.’’ The Guidelines state that EPA 

believes that CALPUFF is the best 

regulatory modeling application 

currently available for predicting a 

single source’s contribution to visibility 

impairment. 70 FR 39162. Florida, in 

coordination with VISTAS, used the 

CALPUFF modeling system to 

determine whether individual sources 

in Florida were subject to or exempt 

from BART. 

The BART Guidelines also 

recommend that states develop a 

modeling protocol for making 

individual source attributions and 

suggest that states may want to consult 

with EPA and their RPO to address any 

issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS 

states, including Florida, developed a 

‘‘Protocol for the Application of 

CALPUFF for BART Analyses.’’ 

Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, 

industrial sources, trade groups, and 

other interested parties, actively 

participated in the development and 

review of the VISTAS protocol. 

VISTAS developed a post-processing 

approach to use the new IMPROVE 

equation with the CALPUFF model 

results so that the BART analyses could 

consider both the old and new 

IMPROVE equations. FDEP sent a letter 

and an email to EPA on January 3, 2008, 

and January 11, 2008, respectively, 

justifying the need for this postprocessing approach, and the EPA 

Region 4 Regional Administrator sent 

Florida a letter of approval dated 

January 17, 2008. Florida’s justification 

included a method to process the 

CALPUFF output and a rationale on the 

benefits of using the new IMPROVE 

equation. The State’s letter requesting 

approval is located in Appendix L on 

page 206 of the March 19, 2010, Florida 

regional haze SIP submittal and can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

0935. The State’s email providing 

additional documentation and EPA 

Region 4’s approval letter are also in the 

docket for this action. 

ii. Contribution Threshold 

For states using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that the first step is to set a 

contribution threshold to assess whether 

the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31255 

19EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. 

Florida relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and 

NOX for its EGUs subject to CAIR, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2 and NOX were 

not analyzed. 

20 Ibid. 

The BART Guidelines state that, ‘‘[a] 

single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘cause’ visibility 

impairment.’’ The BART Guidelines 

also state that ‘‘the appropriate 

threshold for determining whether a 

source ‘contributes to visibility 

impairment’ may reasonably differ 

across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general 

matter, any threshold that you use for 

determining whether a source 

‘contributes’ to visibility impairment 

should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews.’’ The Guidelines affirm that 

states are free to use a lower threshold 

if they conclude that the location of a 

large number of BART-eligible sources 

in proximity of a Class I area justifies 

this approach. 

Florida used a contribution threshold 

of 0.5 deciview for determining which 

sources are subject to BART and 

concluded that the threshold of 0.5 

deciview was appropriate in this 

situation. While Florida has 46 sources 

with BART-eligible units, they are 

scattered about the State and, in FDEP’s 

judgment, are not clustered in sufficient 

quantity to warrant a change to the 

threshold value of 0.5 deciview. FDEP 

concluded, and EPA proposes to agree, 

that a 0.5 deciview threshold was 

appropriate in this instance and a lower 

threshold is not warranted. 

iii. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

Florida initially identified 46 sources 

with BART-eligible units. Six BARTeligible sources made changes to their 

operation in order to exempt from 

further BART review. These sources are: 

Georgia Pacific-Palatka; Rock Tenn 

(Smurfit-Stone)—Fernandina Beach; 

Rock Tenn (Smurfit-Stone)—Panama 

City; Mosaic New Wales; Mosaic 

Riverview; and CF Industries. All of 

these changes have been incorporated 

into their air permits and are federally 

enforceable. Table 6 identifies the 

remaining 40 BART-eligible sources 

identified in FDEP’s March 19, 2010, 

submittal, and of these, lists the five 

sources identified as subject to BART. 

TABLE 6—INITIAL LIST OF FLORIDA BART-ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES

Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART Analysis 

EGUs Subject to BART: 19

Florida Power Corporation—Crystal River Power Plant (Units 1, 2) 

Florida Power & Light—Turkey Point Power Plant (Units 1, 2) 

EGUs to be Shut Down by December 31, 2013: 

Tallahassee City—Purdom Generating Station (Unit 7) 

Non-EGUs Subject to BART: 

CEMEX 

White Springs Agricultural Chemicals-SR/SC Complex 

Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to BART 

EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources: 20

City of Gainesville—Deerhaven Generating Station (Unit 3) 

City of Vero Beach—City of Vero Beach Municipal Utilities (Units 2, 3, 4) 

City of Tallahassee—Arvah B.Hopkins Generating Station (Units 1, 4) 

Florida Power Corp.—Anclote Power Plant (Units 1, 2) 

Florida Power Corp.—Bartow Plant (Unit 3) 

Florida Power & Light—Cape Canaveral Power Plant (Units 1, 2) 

Florida Power & Light—Manatee Power Plant (Units 1, 2) 

Florida Power & Light—Martin Power Plant (Units 1, 2) 

Florida Power & Light—Port Everglades Power Plant (Units 3, 4) 

Florida Power & Light—Putnam Power Plant (Units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) 

Florida Power & Light—Riviera Power Plant (Unit 4) 

Gulf Power Company—Crist Electric Generating Plant (Units 6, 7) 

Gulf Power Company—Lansing Smith Plant (Units 1, 2) 

JEA Northside/SJRPP (Unit 3) 

Reliant Energy Indian River—Indian River Plant (Units 2, 3) 

Lakeland Electric—Charles Larsen Memorial Power Plant (Unit 4) 

Lakeland Electric—C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant (Units 1, 5) 

Tampa Electric Company—Big Bend Station (Units 1, 2, 3) 

Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt Sources: 

Atlantic Sugar Association—Atlantic Sugar Mill 

Buckeye Florida—Perry 

ExxonMobil Production—St Regis Treating Facility and Jay Gas Plant 

IFF Chemical Holdings, Inc. 

IMC Phosphates Company—South Pierce 

International Paper Company—Pensacola Mill 

Mosaic—Bartow 

Mosaic—Green Bay Plant 

Osceola Farms 

Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op 

U.S. Sugar Corp.—Clewiston Mill and Refinery 

Model Plant Exempt Sources: 

Solutia Inc. 

Lake Worth Util.—Tom G. Smith Plant (Units 6, 9) 

Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority—H D King Power Plant (Units 7, 8) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31256 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

21Florida had previously identified that the City 

of Tallahassee—Purdom Generating Station (Unit 7) 

would be shut down by December 31, 2013, in the 

State’s March 19, 2010, SIP revision. 

TABLE 6—INITIAL LIST OF FLORIDA BART-ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES—Continued 

Sterling Fibers, Inc. 

ShutDown Sources: 

U.S. Sugar Corp.—Bryant Mill 

IMC Phosphates Company—Port Sutton Terminal 

Two of the 17 non-EGU facilities 

(CEMEX and White Springs Agricultural 

Chemicals-SR/SC Complex) were found 

to be subject to BART and were required 

to prepare a full BART determination 

analysis. Eleven non-EGU sources 

demonstrated that they are exempt from 

being subject to BART by modeling less 

than a 0.5 deciview visibility impact at 

the affected Class I areas. This modeling 

involved assessing the visibility impact 

of emissions of NOx, SO2, and PM10 as 

applicable to individual facilities. Two 

facilities (Solutia Inc. and Sterling 

Fibers, Inc) were exempt from BART 

because they met EPA’s model plant 

criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 

39162–39163) and thus, were not 

evaluated further. Two facilities 

permanently shut down prior to 

preparing an analysis. 

The 23 sources with BART-eligible 

EGUs relied on Florida’s decision to use 

CAIR emissions limits for SO2 and NOX

to satisfy their obligation to comply 

with BART requirements in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore, 

EGU sources only modeled PM10

emissions. Prior to the CAIR remand, 

the State’s reliance on CAIR to satisfy 

BART for NOX and SO2 for affected 

CAIR EGUs was fully approvable and in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). In 

a separate action, EPA has proposed a 

limited disapproval of the Florida 

regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the remand of 

CAIR to EPA by the D.C. Circuit. See 76 

FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not 

taking action in this proposed 

rulemaking to address the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. 

On August 8, 2011, EPA published 

the Transport Rule which replaced 

CAIR. As under CAIR, EPA determined 

in the Transport Rule that Florida is 

contributing to ozone air quality 

problems in other states. However, 

unlike CAIR, EPA determined in CSAPR 

that Florida is contributing to SO2

problems in other states. As a result, the 

Florida facilities with EGUs that 

previously relied on CAIR to satisfy 

their BART obligations for SO2 would 

no longer be subject to CAIR nor able to 

rely on its successor, the Transport 

Rule, to meet their BART assessment 

requirements. 

Accordingly, FDEP has initiated an 

effort to reassess BART for all of these 

facilities with BART-eligible EGUs. In 

its April 13, 2012, proposed SIP 

amendment, the State evaluated 12 of 

the 23 affected facilities. Table 7 

summarizes the reevaluated facilities 

with BART-eligible EGUs. 

TABLE 7—REEVALUATED FLORIDA BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES

Facilities With Units Subject to BART Analysis 

Existing Controls Meet the Most Stringent Level of Control: 

Tampa Electric Company—Big Bend Station (Units 1, 2, 3) 

Facilities That Will Shut Down by December 31, 2013: 

Florida Power & Light—Port Everglades Power Plant (Units 3, 4) 

Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to BART Analysis 

Facilities That Have Shut Down: 

City of Tallahassee—Arvah B. Hopkins Generating Station (Unit 4) 

Florida Power & Light—Riviera Power Plant (Unit 4) 

Florida Power Corp.—Bartow Plant (Unit 3) 

Lakeland Electric—Charles Larsen Memorial Power Plant (Unit 4) 

Florida Power & Light—Cape Canaveral Power Plant (Units 1, 2) 

Ft Pierce Utilities Authority—H D King Power Plant (Units 7, 8) 

BART Modeling Exempt Sources (SO2, NOX, PM10): 

City of Gainesville Deerhaven (Unit 3) 

City of Vero Beach—City of Vero Beach Municipal Utilities (Units 2, 3, 4) 

Florida Power & Light—Putnam Power Plant (Units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) 

Lake Worth Utilities—Tom G. Smith (Units 6, 9) 

Of the 23 EGU BART-eligible 

facilities, FDEP identified 11 units at 

eight facilities that have shut down or 

will be shut down by December 31, 

2013,21 14 units at four facilities that 

model a contribution of less than 0.5 

deciview when considering all three 

pollutants contributing to visibility 

impairment (SO2, NOX, PM10), and three 

units at one facility which has recently 

installed SO2 and NOX controls that the 

State has determined to be the most 

stringent level of control available for 

these sources. The remaining 11 

facilities with BART-eligible EGUs 

subject to CAIR (a total of 20 EGUs) that 

now have an incomplete BART analysis 

will be addressed by Florida in a future 

SIP revision, and by EPA in subsequent 

actions. Table 8 lists the revised list of 

BART-eligible sources, those with a 

completed BART analysis, and sources 

with an incomplete BART analysis at 

this time. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31257 

TABLE 8—REVISED LIST OF BART-ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES

Facilities With Unit(s) With a Complete BART Analysis 

EGUs With Existing Controls That Meet the Most Stringent Level of Control: 

Tampa Electric Company—Big Bend Station (Units 1, 2, 3) 

EGUs To Be Shut Down by December 31, 2013: 

City of Tallahassee—Purdom Generating Station (Unit 7) 

Florida Power & Light—Port Everglades Power Plant (Units 3, 4) 

Non-EGU BART Analyses: 

CEMEX 

White Springs Agricultural Chemical—SR/SC Complex 

Facilities With Unit(s) With an Incomplete BART Analysis 

EGUs Subject to CAIR With PM Only BART Analysis 22

City of Tallahassee—Arvah B.Hopkins Generating Station (Unit 1) 

Florida Power Corp.—Anclote Power Plant (Units 1, 2) 

Florida Power Corp.—Crystal River Power Plant (Units 1, 2) 

Florida Power & Light—Manatee Power Plant (Units 1, 2) 

Florida Power & Light—Martin Power Plant (Units 1, 2) 

Florida Power & Light—Turkey Point Power Plant (Units 1, 2) 

Gulf Power Company—Crist Electric Generating Plant (Units 6, 7) 

Gulf Power Company—Lansing Smith Plant (Units 1, 2) 

JEA Northside—SJRPP (Unit 3) 

Lakeland Electric—C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant (Units 1, 5) 

Reliant Energy Indian River—Indian River Plant (Units 2, 3) 

Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to BART Analysis 

EGU CAIR and BART Modeling Exempt Sources (SO2, NOX, PM10): 

City of Gainesville—Deerhaven Generating Station (Unit 3) 

City of Vero Beach—City of Vero Beach Municipal Utilities (Units 2, 3, 4) 

Florida Power & Light—Putnam Power Plant (Units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) 

Lake Worth Utilities—Tom G. Smith (Units 6, 9) 

EGU-Shut Down Sources: 

City of Tallahassee—Arvah B. Hopkins Generating Station (Unit 4) 

Florida Power & Light—Riviera Power Plant (Unit 4) 

Florida Power Corp.—Bartow Plant (Unit 3) 

Lakeland Electric—Charles Larsen Memorial Power Plant (Unit 4) 

Ft Pierce Utilities Authority—H D King Power Plant (Units 7, 8) 

Florida Power & Light—Cape Canaveral Power Plant (Units 1, 2) 

Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt Sources: 

Atlantic Sugar Association—Atlantic Sugar Mill 

Buckeye Florida—Perry 

ExxonMobil Production—St Regis Treating Facility and Jay Gas Plant 

IFF Chemical Holdings, Inc. 

IMC Phosphates Company—South Pierce 

International Paper Company—Pensacola Mill 

Mosaic—Bartow 

Mosaic—Green Bay Plant 

Osceola Farms 

Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op 

U.S. Sugar Corp.—Clewiston Mill and Refinery 

Non-EGU Model Plant Exempt Sources 

Solutia Inc. 

Sterling Fibers, Inc. 

Non-EGU Shut Down Sources 

U.S. Sugar Corp.—Bryant Mill 

IMC Phosphates Company—Port Sutton Terminal 

22EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. The Florida relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX for its EGUs subject to CAIR, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2 and NOX were not analyzed. 

For the 17 non-EGU BART-eligible 

facilities in Table 8, the two sources 

found subject to BART and requiring a 

full BART determination analysis are 

CEMEX and White Springs Agricultural 

Chemical—SR/SC Complex. These 

BART-subject sources were required to 

complete BART determination 

modeling, which included an analysis 

of the five CAA BART factors, to 

determine appropriate BART controls. 

c. BART Determinations 

Five BART-eligible sources (i.e., 

CEMEX, White Springs Agricultural 

Chemical—SR/SC Complex, City of 

Tallahassee—Purdom Generating 

Station, Tampa Electric Company—Big 

Bend Station (Units 1, 2, 3), and Florida 

Power and Light (FPL)—Port Everglades 

(Units 3, 4)) modeled visibility impacts 

of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold 

for BART exemption. These five 

facilities are therefore considered to be 

subject to BART. Consequently, they 

each submitted permit applications to 

the State that included their proposed 

BART determinations. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31258 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

In accordance with the BART 

Guidelines, to determine the level of 

control that represents BART for each 

source, the State first reviewed existing 

controls on these BART-subject sources 

to assess whether these constituted the 

best controls currently available, then 

identified what other technically 

feasible controls are available, and 

finally, evaluated the technically 

feasible controls using the five BART 

statutory factors. The State’s evaluations 

and conclusions, and EPA’s assessment, 

are summarized below. 

i. CEMEX 

CEMEX operates an existing Portland 

cement plant with two Portland cement 

lines (Lines 1 and 2). These include: two 

Polysius GEPOL preheater kilns (Kilns 1 

and 2); two clinker coolers and 

associated raw mills; finish mills; 

cement and clinker handling 

equipment; coal handling equipment; 

silos; and air pollution control devices. 

The nominal capacity of each kiln is 

780,000 tpy of clinker. The kiln was 

subjected to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) review and Best 

Available Control Technology 

determination (BACT) review since 

1977 one or more times, and FDEP 

determined the permitted values 

compare favorably to recent 

determinations made throughout the 

country even for new units. Overall, the 

controls consist of effective SO2

scrubbing in the calciner; low raw 

material sulfur; fabric filter baghouses 

for PM; and selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR) for NOX control. All 

controls including emissions limits are 

federally enforceable. 

NOX Kiln Controls: To control 

emissions of NOX, CEMEX is required to 

either operate the installed SNCR 

system or install a selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) system between the 

preheater and the raw mill to augment 

or replace the existing SNCR system 

with an emission limit of 1.2 lb/ton of 

kiln preheater feed. 

SO2 Kiln Controls: The present SO2

control system consisting of dry alkali 

and lime scrubbing in the kiln system 

and limestone scrubbing in the raw mill 

is the most stringent control available, 

and FDEP determined that it constitutes 

BART. 

PM/PM10 Kiln Controls: Each subjectto-BART emissions unit at the facility 

identified as subject to BART is required 

to control PM/PM10 by a baghouse 

system. Bags/filters in each baghouse 

control system shall be selected based 

on a PM design outlet specification of 

0.01 grain (gr) per dry standard cubic 

foot (dscf) and a PM10 design outlet 

specification of 0.007 gr/dscf. 

FDEP determined it was not necessary 

to submit a full five-factor analysis and 

determined that the controls in place 

constituted BART. 

ii. White Springs Agricultural 

Chemicals, Inc. 

White Springs Agricultural 

Chemicals, Inc., also known as PCS 

Phosphate, operates a phosphate 

complex that processes phosphate rock 

to produce several products at the 

Suwannee River/Swift Creek Complex 

(two plants). The facility consists of one 

rock grinder, two phosphoric acid 

plants, two defluorinated phosphate 

(DFP) plants, one dical process, two 

diammonium phosphate (DAP) plants, 

one monoammonium (MAP)/DAP 

storage building, one MAP/DAP screen/ 

shipping building, four sulfuric acid 

plants (SAP), two phosphoric acid 

filters, four superphosphoric acid 

plants, one green superphosphoric acid 

plant, the Swift Creek Mine rock dryer, 

and one acid clarification plant. The 

facility also has storage silos associated 

with the Swift Creek Mine and the DFP 

plant. 

Sulfuric acid is produced on-site by 

burning elemental sulfur, converting the 

resulting SO2 to sulfur trioxide, and 

absorbing it into a recirculating sulfuric 

acid solution. Phosphoric acid is made 

by acidulation of phosphate rock with 

sulfuric acid. Waste gypsum is 

produced and stacked. The phosphoric 

acid is reacted with ammonia to make 

MAP and DAP and phosphoric acid is 

reacted with limestone and other raw 

materials to make animal feed 

ingredients. 

SAP C and D plants use the double 

absorption process to control SO2

emissions and demisters to control 

sulfuric acid mist emissions. 

All of the DAP/MAP plants include 

medium to high efficiency wet 

scrubbers that use phosphoric acid and 

then pond water to reduce PM from the 

reactor and granulators. They are also 

equipped with abatement scrubbers 

using fresh water for final cleanup. 

Emissions from the dryers, coolers, 

mills and screens are controlled by 

cyclones, wet scrubbers with 

phosphoric acid or pond water as the 

scrubbing medium, and by abatement 

scrubbers using fresh water. 

A and B DFP Coolers and Swift Creek 

Mine Silos use wet cyclonic scrubbers 

with pond water as the scrubbing 

medium to control particulate matter 

emissions. 

A and B DFP Plants include crossflow packed wet scrubber with pond 

water as the scrubbing medium to 

control PM emissions. 

The X Train Dical Process rotary dryer 

includes a series of wet venturi and 

cyclonic scrubbers to control PM 

emissions. 

The #2 Phosphate Rock Grinder, X 

Train limestone handling, the DFP Feed 

Prep area, and the DFP Product Silos 

include fabric filter baghouses designed 

to recover process or product raw 

materials and to control PM emissions. 

The Swift Creek Mine Rock Dryer and 

Swift Creek Mine Silos include wet 

cyclonic scrubber to control PM 

emissions. The Rock Dryer is fired 

primarily with natural gas. 

FDEP reviewed the facility following 

the BART Guidelines. For most BARTsubject units at the facility, the State 

performed a full BART determination 

analysis. However, for some BARTsubject units, the State found that the 

existing controls were the best available 

and no further review was performed in 

accordance with the BART Guidelines. 

See 70 FR 39165. In other instances, 

BART-subject units were modified after 

August 7, 1977, subject to PSD review, 

and BACT controls were installed. The 

State took this into account during the 

review process, and in these instances, 

found that the level of controls already 

in place for BACT are consistent with 

and determined to be BART. 

White Springs submitted its BART 

permit application with proposed BART 

determination on the basis of the 

original design, and compared it to 

subsequent recent PSD/BACT reviews of 

similar emissions units at other 

facilities. FDEP finds that the levels of 

controls already in place are consistent 

with those found to be BACT in recent 

determinations and represent BART for 

this facility. Emissions limits consistent 

with this finding were incorporated into 

the final BART permit with some minor 

technical adjustments. 

iii. City of Tallahassee—Purdom 

Generating Station 

The City of Tallahassee operates the 

Sam O. Purdom Generating Station. 

Unit 7 at this facility is a BART-eligible 

EGU that is fired primarily with fuel oil 

and natural gas. The unit began 

operation in 1966 and is a 621 MMBtu 

per hour steam generator paired with a 

nominal 44 MW steam-electrical 

generator. FDEP issued a final air 

construction Permit No. 120001–008– 

AC on September 11, 2007, requiring 

that Unit 7 permanently cease operation 

no later than December 31, 2013, to 

satisfy BART. 

iv. Tampa Electric Company—Big Bend 

Station (Units 1, 2, 3) 

Tampa Electric Company’s Big Bend 

Station Units 1, 2, and 3 are BARTmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31259 

23Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas 

similarly relied on CAIR emission reductions 

within the state to address some or all of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in other states’ 

Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area 

state(s) used to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). 

Certain surrounding non-CAIR states also relied on 

reductions due to CAIR in nearby states to develop 

their regional haze SIP submittals. 

eligible coal-fired units with a combined 

capacity of approximately 1,200 MW. 

This facility entered into a consent 

decree with FDEP and EPA to reduce 

emissions at Big Bend Station. These 

legally enforceable agreements required 

the upgrade of the ESP, upgrades to the 

flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubbers 

for SO2, and the installation of SCR for 

NOX control. The PM emission limit is 

0.03lb/MMBtu, the FGD is required to 

achieve 95 percent reduction efficiency,

and the SCR lowers NOX emissions to 

0.12 lb/MMBtu. FDEP has concluded 

that these are the most stringent controls 

technically available for this source and, 

thus, no further analysis for BART is 

necessary in accordance with the BART 

Guidelines. See 70 FR 39165. 

v. Florida Power and Light (FPL)—Port 

Everglades (Units 3, 4) 

On January 24, 2012, Florida Power 

and Light submitted an application to 

construct one nominal 1,250 MW 

combined cycle unit and ancillary 

equipment at the FPL Port Everglades 

Plant. The four existing fossil fuel-fired 

steam generators with a total nominal 

capacity of 1,200 MW will be shut down 

and dismantled as part of this project. 

The BART-eligible units 3 and 4 are 

scheduled to be demolished in the first 

quarter of 2013 but not later than 

December 31, 2013. FDEP included a 

copy of the permit for informational 

purposes in Exhibit 2. 

vi. EPA Assessment 

EPA proposes to agree with Florida’s 

analyses and conclusions for the five 

BART-subject sources described above. 

EPA has reviewed the State’s analyses 

and believes that they were conducted 

in a manner that is consistent with 

EPA’s BART Guidelines and EPA’s Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual (http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/ 

products.html#cccinfo). 

vii. Enforceability of Limits 

The BART determinations for each of 

the five facilities discussed above and 

the resulting emissions limits and 

conditions were adopted by Florida and 

have been incorporated into the 

facilities’ title V operating permits. 

Copies of these permits were included 

for informational purposes in an 

attachment to the Florida Regional Haze 

SIP submittal of March 19, 2010, and in 

the April 13, 2012, amendment as 

Exhibit 2. 

7. RPGs 

The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) 

requires states to establish RPGs for 

each Class I area within the state 

(expressed in deciviews) that provide 

for reasonable progress towards 

achieving natural visibility. VISTAS 

modeled visibility improvements under 

existing Federal and state regulations for 

the period 2004–2018 and additional 

control measures that the VISTAS states 

planned to implement in the first 

implementation period. At the time of 

VISTAS modeling, some of the other 

states with sources potentially 

impacting visibility at Florida’s Class I 

areas had not yet made final control 

determinations for BART and/or 

reasonable progress, and thus, these 

controls were not included in the 

modeling submitted by Florida. Any 

controls resulting from those 

determinations will provide additional 

emissions reductions and resulting 

visibility improvement, giving further 

assurance that Florida will achieve its 

RPGs. This modeling demonstrates that 

the 2018 base control scenario provides 

for an improvement in visibility better 

than the uniform rate of progress for two 

of the three Florida Class I areas for the 

most impaired days over the period of 

the implementation plan and ensures no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. 

As shown in Table 9 below, visibility 

improvements on the 20 percent worst 

days in Florida’s Class I areas are 

expected to be slightly better than the 

uniform rate of progress by 2018 for 

Everglades and Chassahowitzka and 

slightly less than the uniform rate of 

progress for St. Marks based on 

emissions reductions from existing and 

planned emissions controls. Based on 

the projected rate of progress, St. Marks 

would achieve natural conditions by 

2067. Also, the RPGs for the 20 percent 

best days provide greater visibility 

improvement by 2018 than current best 

day conditions at all three sites. The 

modeling supporting the analysis of 

these RPGs is consistent with EPA 

guidance prior to the CAIR remand. The 

regional haze provisions specify that a 

state may not adopt an RPG that 

represents less visibility improvement 

than is expected to result from other 

CAA requirements during the 

implementation period. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the CAIR 

states with Class I areas, including 

Florida, took into account emissions 

reductions anticipated from CAIR in 

determining their 2018 RPGs.23

TABLE 9—FLORIDA 2018 RPGS

[In deciviews] 

Class I area 

Baseline 

visibility—20% 

worst days 

2018 RPG— 

20% worst 

days 

(improvement 

from baseline) 

Uniform rate of 

progress at 

2018—20% 

worst days 

(improvement 

from baseline) 

Baseline 

visibility—20% 

best days 

2018 RPG— 

20% best days 

(improvement 

from baseline) 

Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area ....................................... 25.75 22.27 (3.48) 22.31 (3.44) 15.51 13.91 (1.60) 

Everglades National Park .................................................... 22.30 19.90 (2.40) 19.92 (2.38) 11.69 11.46 (0.25) 

St. Marks Wilderness Area .................................................. 26.31 23.01 (3.30) 22.89 (3.42) 14.37 12.80 (1.57) 

The RPGs for the Class I areas in 

Florida are based on modeled 

projections of future conditions that 

were developed using the best available 

information at the time the analysis was 

done. These projections can be expected 

to change as additional information 

regarding future conditions becomes 

available. For example, new sources 

may be built, existing sources may shut 

down or modify production in response 

to changed economic circumstances, 

and facilities may change their emission 

characteristics as they install control 

equipment to comply with new rules. It 

would be both impractical and resourceintensive to require a state to 

continually revise its RPGs every time 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31260 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

24The Florida visibility SIP revisions were 

submitted to EPA on August 27, 1987, and 

approved by EPA on June 30, 1988 (53 FR 24695). 

an event affecting these future 

projections changed. 

EPA recognized the problems of a 

rigid requirement to meet a long-term 

goal based on modeled projections of 

future visibility conditions, and 

addressed the uncertainties associated 

with RPGs in several ways. EPA made 

clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a 

mandatory standard which must be 

achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR 

at 35733. At the same time, EPA 

established a requirement for a 

midcourse review and, if necessary, 

correction of the states’ regional haze 

plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In 

particular, the RHR calls for a five-year 

progress review after submittal of the 

initial regional haze plan. The purpose 

of this progress review is to assess the 

effectiveness of emission management 

strategies in meeting the RPG and to 

provide an assessment of whether 

current implementation strategies are 

sufficient for the state or affected states 

to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, 

based on its assessment, that the RPGs 

for a Class I area will not be met, the 

RHR requires the state to take 

appropriate action. See 40 CFR 

52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate 

action will depend on the basis for the 

State’s conclusion that the current 

strategies are insufficient to meet the 

RPGs. Florida specifically committed to 

follow this process in the LTS portion 

of its submittal. Any resulting visibility 

improvement differences resulting from 

changes in coverage for Florida’s EGUs 

from CAIR will be assessed in the fiveyear progress report SIP. 

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

EPA’s visibility regulations direct 

states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and 

monitoring provisions with those for 

regional haze, as explained in sections 

IV.F and IV.G of this action. Under 

EPA’s RAVI regulations, the RAVI 

portion of a state SIP must address any 

integral vistas identified by the FLMs 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral 

vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a 

‘‘view perceived from within the 

mandatory Class I area of a specific 

landmark or panorama located outside 

the boundary of the mandatory Class I 

Federal area.’’ Visibility in any 

mandatory Class I area includes any 

integral vista associated with that area. 

The FLMs did not identify any integral 

vistas in Florida. In addition, the Class 

I areas in Florida are neither 

experiencing RAVI, nor are any of the 

State’s sources affected by the RAVI 

provisions. Thus, the Florida regional 

haze SIP submittal does not explicitly 

address the two requirements regarding 

coordination of the regional haze with 

the RAVI LTS and monitoring 

provisions. However, Florida previously 

made a commitment to address RAVI 

should the FLM certify visibility 

impairment from an individual 

source.24 EPA proposes to find that this 

regional haze submittal appropriately 

supplements and augments Florida’s 

RAVI visibility provisions to address 

regional haze by updating the 

monitoring and LTS provisions as 

summarized below in this section. 

In the Florida regional haze SIP 

submittal, FDEP updated its visibility 

monitoring program and developed a 

LTS to address regional haze. Also in 

this submittal, FDEP affirmed its 

commitment to complete items required 

in the future under EPA’s RHR. 

Specifically, FDEP made a commitment 

to review and revise its regional haze 

implementation plan and submit a plan 

revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and 

every 10 years thereafter. See 40 CFR 

51.308(f). In accordance with the 

requirements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

of EPA’s regional haze regulations and 

40 CFR 51.306(c) of the RAVI LTS 

regulations, FDEP made a commitment 

to submit a report to EPA on progress 

towards the RPGs for each mandatory 

Class I area located within Florida and 

in each mandatory Class I area located 

outside Florida which may be affected 

by emissions from within Florida. The 

progress report is required to be in the 

form of a SIP revision and is due every 

five years following the initial submittal 

of the regional haze SIP. Consistent with 

EPA’s monitoring regulations for RAVI 

and regional haze, Florida will rely on 

the IMPROVE network for compliance 

purposes, in addition to any RAVI 

monitoring that may be needed in the 

future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4). Also, the Florida new 

source review (NSR) rules continue to 

provide a framework for review and 

coordination with the FLMs on new 

sources which may have an adverse 

impact on visibility in either form (i.e., 

RAVI and/or regional haze) in any Class 

I area. The Florida regional haze SIP 

contains a plan addressing the 

associated monitoring and reporting 

requirements. See 53 FR 24695 (June 30, 

1988). 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

The primary monitoring network for 

regional haze in Florida is the IMPROVE 

network. As discussed in section V.B.2 

of this action, there are currently three 

IMPROVE sites in Florida, which serve 

as the monitoring sites for the three 

Class I areas in Florida. IMPROVE 

monitoring data from 2000–2004 serves 

as the baseline for the regional haze 

program and is relied upon in the 

Florida regional haze submittal. In the 

submittal, Florida states its intention to 

rely on the IMPROVE network for 

complying with the regional haze 

monitoring requirement in EPA’s RHR 

for the current and future regional haze 

implementation periods. 

Data produced by the IMPROVE 

monitoring network will be used nearly 

continuously for preparing the five-year 

progress reports and the 10-year SIP 

revisions, each of which relies on 

analysis of the preceding five years of 

data. The Visibility Information 

Exchange Web System (VIEWS) web site 

has been maintained by VISTAS and the 

other RPOs to provide ready access to 

the IMPROVE data and data analysis 

tools. Florida is encouraging VISTAS 

and the other RPOs to maintain the 

VIEWS or a similar data management 

system to facilitate analysis of the 

IMPROVE data. 

In addition to the IMPROVE 

measurements, FDEP and the local air 

agencies in the State operate a PM2.5

network of the filter-based federal 

reference method monitors, federal 

equivalent method continuous monitors 

and continuous mass monitors, and 

filter-based speciated monitors. These 

PM2.5 measurements help FDEP 

characterize air pollution levels in areas 

across the state, and therefore aid in the 

analysis of visibility improvement in 

and near the Class I areas. 

F. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

In December 2006 and May 2007, the 

State Air Directors from the VISTAS 

states held formal interstate 

consultation meetings. The purpose of 

the meetings was to discuss the 

methodology proposed by VISTAS for 

identifying sources to evaluate for 

reasonable progress. The states invited 

FLM and EPA representatives to 

participate and to provide additional 

feedback. The Directors discussed the 

results of analyses showing 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from states to each of the Class I areas 

in the VISTAS region. 

FDEP has evaluated the impact of 

sources on Class I areas in neighboring 

states. FDEP sent letters to Alabama and 

Georgia documenting its analysis using 

the State’s AOI methodology and its 

approach to address the visibility 

impairment at the Class I areas in those 

states. The neighboring states were 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 31261 

supportive of the Florida approach. The 

documentation for these formal 

consultations is provided in Exhibit 3 of 

Florida’s SIP. 

EPA proposes to find that Florida has 

adequately addressed the consultation 

requirements in the RHR and 

appropriately documented its 

consultation with other states in its SIP 

submittal. 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

Through the VISTAS RPO, Florida 

and the nine other member states 

worked extensively with the FLMs from 

the U.S. Departments of the Interior and 

Agriculture to develop technical 

analyses that support the regional haze 

SIPs for the VISTAS states. FDEP 

provided a draft plan dated August 27, 

2009, to the FLMs (and EPA) for review. 

Exhibit 3 of the Florida regional haze 

SIP submittal includes the October 26, 

2009, comment letter from the U.S. 

National Park Service and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, which indicates 

that the FLMs appear to be generally 

supportive of the State’s regional haze 

SIP, and were pleased with the 

technical information summarized in 

the regional haze SIP narrative. The 

bulk of the comments requested 

clarifications to the SIP or raised 

specific issues on the BART 

determinations that Florida addressed. 

FDEP responded to all the comments 

and made the requested clarifications as 

specified in its final SIP submittal. To 

address the requirement for continuing 

consultation procedures with the FLMs 

under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), FDEP made 

a commitment in the SIP to ongoing 

consultation with the FLMs on regional 

haze issues throughout implementation 

of its plan, including annual 

discussions. FDEP also affirms in the 

SIP that FLM consultation is required 

for those sources subject to the State’s 

NSR regulations. 

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

As summarized in sectionV.D of this 

action, consistent with 40 CFR 

51.308(g), FDEP affirmed its 

commitment to submitting a progress 

report in the form of a SIP revision to 

EPA every five years following this 

initial submittal of the Florida regional 

haze SIP. The report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the RPGs for the 

mandatory Class I areas located within 

Florida and in each mandatory Class I 

area located outside Florida that may be 

affected by emissions from within 

Florida. Florida also offered 

recommendations for several technical 

improvements that, as funding allows, 

can support the State’s next LTS. These 

recommendations are discussed in 

detail in the Florida SIP submittal in 

Appendix K. 

If another state’s regional haze SIP 

identifies that Florida’s SIP needs to be 

supplemented or modified, and if 

Florida agrees after appropriate 

consultation, today’s action may be 

revisited or additional information and/ 

or changes will be addressed in the fiveyear progress report SIP revision. 

VI. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of three revisions to the Florida SIP 

submitted by the State of Florida on 

March 19, 2010, August 31, 2010, and 

April 13, 2012, as meeting some of the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

as set forth in sections 169A and 169B 

of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300–308, 

as described previously in this action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ 

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as a requirement for 

answers to * * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply to this action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the federal 

SIP approval does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

federal-state relationship under the 

CAA, preparation of a flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The CAA 

forbids EPA to base its actions 

concerning SIPs on such grounds. 

Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 

246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that today’s 

proposal does not include a federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

state, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

federal action proposes to approve preexisting requirements under State or 

local law, and imposes no new 

requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to state, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

Federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

31262 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has Federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 

requires federal agencies to evaluate 

existing technical standards when 

developing a new regulation. To comply 

with NTTAA, EPA must consider and 

use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ 

(VCS) if available and applicable when 

developing programs and policies 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 14, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12777 Filed 5–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0336; FRL–3675–6 ] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kentucky; 

Louisville; Fine Particulate Matter 2002 

Base Year Emissions Inventory 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 2002 

base year emissions inventory, portion 

of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky on 

December 3, 2008. The emissions 

inventory is part of the Kentucky’s 

December 3, 2008, SIP revision that was 

submitted to meet the nonattainment 

requirements related to the 

Commonwealth’s portion of the bi-state 

Louisville, KY–IN nonattainment area 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

The bi-state Louisville, KY–IN 

nonattainment area is comprised of 

Clark and Floyd Counties in Indiana, in 

their entireties; the Madison Township 

portion of Jefferson County, Indiana; 

and Bullitt and Jefferson Counties in 

Kentucky, in their entireties. This 

proposed action only relates to the 

Kentucky portion (i.e., Bullitt and 

Jefferson Counties) of this Area. EPA 

will consider action on the emissions 

inventory for the Indiana portion of this 

Area in a separate action. This action is 

being taken pursuant to section 110 of 

the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0336, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0336,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0336. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS