53250 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

PCAPCD ......................................................... 233 Biomass Boilers ............................................. 06/14/12 09/21/12 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complied 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the rule and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received no comments. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 

approving this rule into the California 

SIP. Final approval of this rule satisfies 

California’s obligation to implement 

RACT under CAA section 182 for this 

source category and terminates both the 

sanctions clocks and the Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) clock 

associated with our limited approval 

and limited disapproval of an earlier 

version of this rule. (77 FR 2643, 

January 19, 2012). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 22, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(423)(i)(A)(7) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(423) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(7) Rule 233, ‘‘Biomass Boilers,’’ 

amended on June 14, 2012. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–20919 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0935; FRL– 9900–31– 

Region4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Florida; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a full 

approval of the regional haze state 

implementation plan (SIP) from the 

State of Florida, submitted through the 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP), on March 19, 2010, 

as amended on August 31, 2010, and 

September 17, 2012. Florida’s SIP 

submittal addresses regional haze for 

the first implementation period. 

Specifically, this SIP submittal 

addresses the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’) and EPA’s 

rules that require states to prevent any 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53251 

1 In a separate action published on December 30, 

2011 (76 FR 82219), EPA proposed a limited 

disapproval of the Florida regional haze SIP, and on 

June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a limited 

disapproval of the regional haze SIPs for several 

states, but deferred final action on the Florida 

regional haze SIP. 

2On March 10, 2005, EPA issued CAIR, a rule 

which covers 27 eastern states and the District of 

Columbia. The rule uses a cap and trade system to 

reduce SO2 and NOX from power plant emissions. 

For more information, go to: http://www.epa.gov/

airmarkets/resource/cair-resource.html. 

future and remedy any existing 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility 

in mandatory Class I areas (national 

parks and wilderness areas) caused by 

emissions of air pollutants from 

numerous sources located over a wide 

geographic area (also referred to as the 

‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. In this action, EPA finds that 

Florida’s regional haze SIP meets all of 

the regional haze requirements of the 

CAA. Thus, EPA is finalizing a full 

approval of Florida’s entire regional 

haze SIP. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective September 30, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–0935. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

for further information. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Michele 

Notarianni can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9031 and by 

electronic mail at notarianni.michele@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

III. What is EPA’s response to comments 

received on this action? 

A. Response to Comments on May 25, 

2012, Proposal 

B. Response to Comments on December 10, 

2012, Proposal 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this final 

action 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and 

soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), ammonia (NH3), and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), which impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairment reduces the 

clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. PM2.5 can also cause 

serious health effects and mortality in 

humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ On December 

2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to 

address visibility impairment in Class I 

areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to 

a single source or small group of 

sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment.’’ See 45 FR 

80084. These regulations represented 

the first phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713), commonly referred to as 

the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). The RHR 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations by adding provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

and establishing a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. The requirements for regional 

haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309, are included in EPA’s visibility 

protection regulations at 40 CFR 

51.300–309. The requirement to submit 

a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and the 

Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) 

required states to submit the first 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment no 

later than December 17, 2007. Regional 

haze SIPs must assure reasonable 

progress towards the national goal of 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

in Federal Class I areas. These 

implementation plans must also give 

specific attention to certain stationary 

sources that were in existence on 

August 7, 1977, but were not in 

operation before August 7, 1962, and 

require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. 

On March 19, 2010, and August 31, 

2010, FDEP submitted and subsequently 

amended Florida’s SIP to address 

regional haze in Florida and other 

states’ Class I areas. On May 25, 2012, 

EPA published an action proposing a 

limited approval of Florida’s regional 

haze SIP to address the first 

implementation period for regional 

haze.1 See 77 FR 31240. EPA’s May 25, 

2012, proposed rulemaking covered 

Florida’s March 19, 2010, SIP submittal, 

as amended on August 31, 2010, as well 

as the State’s April 13, 2012, draft 

amendment to the regional haze SIP 

submission. In a July 31, 2012, draft 

amendment to the regional haze SIP 

submission, Florida addressed the 18 

reasonable progress units and 11 

facilities with BART-eligible electric 

generating units (EGUs) subject to EPA’s 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR2) (a 

total of 20 EGUs) that were not covered 

by Florida’s April 13, 2012, draft 

amendment to the regional haze SIP 

submission. It also amended the SIP 

submission to remove Florida’s reliance 

on CAIR to satisfy BART and reasonable 

progress requirements for the State’s 

affected EGUs. 

Florida’s September 17, 2012, final 

amendment to the regional haze SIP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

53252 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3On October 15, 2012, and on May 2, 2013, FDEP 

submitted supplemental information and 

documentation for Progress Energy’s Crystal River 

facility. Additionally, FDEP submitted a letter to 

EPA dated July 30, 2013, in which it committed to 

provide EPA with a regional haze SIP revision no 

later than March 19, 2015, the deadline for the 

State’s five-year regional haze periodic progress 

report, that will include a NOx BART emissions 

limit for Unit 1 reflecting best operating practices 

for good combustion. 

4Specifically, the BART determinations 

addressed by the November 29, 2012, action were: 

Tampa Electric Company-Big Bend Station (Units 1, 

2, 3); City of Tallahassee-Purdom Generating 

Station (Unit 7); Florida Power & Light (FPL)-Port 

Everglades Power Plant (Units 3, 4); CEMEX; White 

Springs Agricultural Chemical-SR/SC Complex; 

City of Gainesville-Deerhaven Generating Station 

(Unit 3); City of Vero Beach-City of Vero Beach 

Municipal Utilities (Units 2, 3, 4); FPL-Putnam 

Power Plant (Units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10); Lake Worth 

Utilities-Tom G. Smith (Units 6, 9); City of 

Tallahassee-Arvah B. Hopkins Generating Station 

(Unit 4); FPL-Riviera Power Plant (Unit 4); Florida 

Power Corp.-Bartow Plant (Unit 3); Lakeland 

Electric-Charles Larsen Memorial Power Plant (Unit 

4); Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority-H D King Power 

Plant (Units 7, 8); FPL-Cape Canaveral Power Plant 

(Units 1, 2); Atlantic Sugar Association-Atlantic 

Sugar Mill; Buckeye Florida-Perry; ExxonMobil 

Production-St. Regis Treating Facility and Jay Gas 

Plant; IFF Chemical Holdings, Inc.; IMC Phosphates 

Company-South Pierce; International Paper 

Company-Pensacola Mill; Mosaic-Bartow; MosaicGreen Bay Plant; Osceola Farms; Sugar Cane 

Growers Co-Op; U.S. Sugar Corp.-Clewiston Mill 

and Refinery; Solutia Inc., Sterling Fibers, Inc.; U.S. 

Sugar Corp.-Bryant Mill; IMC Phosphates CompanyPort Sutton Terminal; Georgia Pacific-Palatka; 

Smurfit-Stone-Fernandina Beach; Smurfit-StonePanama City; Mosaic-New Wales; MosaicRiverview; and CF Industries. 

submission consolidated its draft April 

13, 2012, and draft July 31, 2012, 

amendments to the regional haze SIP 

submission into a single package. On 

October 15, 2012, and on May 2, 2013, 

FDEP submitted supplemental 

information and documentation for 

Progress Energy’s Crystal River facility. 

On November 29, 2012 (77 FR 71111), 

EPA finalized a full approval of the 

BART determinations addressed in the 

Agency’s May 25, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking action. These BART 

determinations were submitted to EPA 

for parallel processing on April 13, 

2012, in a draft amendment to the 

regional haze SIP submission and 

submitted in final form on September 

17, 2012. 

On December 10, 2012 (77 FR 73369), 

EPA proposed several actions related to 

regional haze requirements for Florida. 

First, EPA proposed to approve certain 

BART and reasonable progress 

determinations included in Florida’s 

September 17, 2012, amendment to the 

regional haze SIP submission. Second, 

EPA proposed to find that the 

September 17, 2012, amendment to 

Florida’s regional haze SIP submission 

corrects the deficiencies that led to the 

aforementioned proposed limited 

approval and limited disapproval 

actions. Third, EPA proposed to 

withdraw the previously proposed 

limited disapproval of Florida’s entire 

regional haze SIP, and alternatively 

proposed full approval of the entire 

regional haze SIP. 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is now finalizing full approval of 

all remaining portions of the Florida 

regional haze SIP as proposed on May 

25, 2012, and December 10, 2012, 

including the remaining BART and 

reasonable progress determinations in 

Florida’s September 17, 2012, 

amendment to the regional haze SIP 

submission (as supplemented on 

October 15, 2012, and May 2, 2013) 3 not 

previously addressed in EPA’s 

November 29, 2012, final action.4 EPA 

finds that Florida’s September 17, 2012, 

amendment to the regional haze SIP 

submission (as supplemented on 

October 15, 2012, and May 2, 2013): (1) 

Replaces reliance on CAIR to satisfy the 

BART and reasonable progress 

requirements for its affected EGUs with 

case-by-case BART and reasonable 

progress control analyses; and (2) 

corrects the deficiencies that led to the 

December 30, 2011, proposed limited 

disapproval and the May 25, 2012, 

proposed limited approval of the State’s 

regional haze SIP. Consequently, EPA 

finds that the regional haze SIP as a 

whole now meets the regional haze 

requirements of the CAA. 

EPA received adverse comments on 

the May 25, 2012, proposed limited 

approval of Florida’s regional haze SIP 

and on the December 10, 2012, 

proposed approval of certain BART and 

reasonable progress determinations. See 

Section III of this rulemaking for a 

summary of the comments received on 

EPA’s May 25, 2012, and December 10, 

2012, proposed actions and the 

Agency’s responses to these comments. 

Detailed background information and 

EPA’s rationale for the proposed actions 

are provided in EPA’s May 25, 2012, 

and December 10, 2012, proposed 

rulemakings. See 77 FR 31240 and 77 

FR 73369. 

III. What is EPA’s response to 

comments received on these actions? 

EPA received two sets of comments 

on its May 25, 2012, rulemaking 

proposing a limited approval of 

Florida’s regional haze SIP submittals 

and seven sets of comments on its 

December 10, 2012, proposed approval 

described above. Specifically, the 

comments on the May 25, 2012, 

proposed rulemaking were received 

from the Sierra Club and National Parks 

Conservation Association, collectively, 

and from the Florida Electric Power 

Coordinating Group, Inc.-Environment 

Committee. One comment related to 

BART was addressed in the Agency’s 

November 29, 2012, final rulemaking. 

The remaining comments are addressed 

in this action. The seven sets of 

comments relating to the December 10, 

2012, proposed rulemaking were 

received from Sierra Club, EarthJustice, 

and the National Parks Conservation 

Association, collectively; National Park 

Service (NPS); Florida Electric Power 

Coordinating Group, Inc. -Environment 

Committee; FPL Company; Progress 

Energy; Utility Air Regulatory Group; 

and numerous individual members of 

the Sierra Club. The complete 

comments provided by all of the 

aforementioned entities (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘the Commenter’’) are 

provided in the docket for today’s final 

action (Docket Identification No. EPA– 

R04–OAR–2010–0935). A summary of 

the comments and EPA’s responses are 

provided below. 

A. Response to Comments on the May 

25, 2012, Proposal 

Comment 1: The Commenter 

concludes that EPA cannot approve 

Florida’s reasonable progress 

demonstration or long-term strategy 

(LTS) at this time because ‘‘relevant 

portions of the SIP are incomplete in 

important regards’’ and because the 

components of the SIP are 

‘‘interdependent’’ (i.e., regional haze 

SIPs are ‘‘comprehensive documents 

which fully address haze through linked 

reasonable progress goals, an effective 

long-term strategy, BART requirements 

for appropriate sources, and robust 

monitoring, amongst other 

requirements’’). The Commenter 

believes that EPA cannot approve the 

reasonable progress demonstration or 

LTS ‘‘because the shift from CAIR to 

CSAPR [Cross State Air Pollution Rule] 

has fundamentally altered the SIP, and 

has required Florida to reanalyze 

significant portions of its SIP.’’ The 

Commenter states that until such an 

analysis is complete, the SIP is missing 

critically important components. 

According to the Commenter, EPA 

cannot lawfully or rationally approve 

SIP provisions that rely on future 

revisions that Florida has not yet 

adopted or submitted to EPA or rely on 

CAIR to meet specific regional haze 

requirements when EPA has already 

‘‘taken action to disapprove that exact 

action.’’ Without a complete reasonable 

progress demonstration, LTS, and 

supporting analyses, the Commenter 

believes that EPA approval of such SIP 

sections would be arbitrary and contrary 

to law. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53253 

5The VISTAS Regional Planning Organization 

(RPO) is a collaborative effort of state governments, 

tribal governments, and various Federal agencies 

established to initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of regional haze, 

visibility and other air quality issues in the 

southeastern United States. Member state and tribal 

governments include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and 

the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians. 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s conclusions and is 

approving the reasonable progress 

demonstrations, reasonable progress 

goals (RPGs), and LTS set forth in 

Florida’s regional haze SIP. The State 

has submitted a complete regional haze 

SIP that satisfies all CAA requirements, 

and EPA is taking final action today to 

approve Florida’s entire regional haze 

SIP. When combined with EPA’s 

November 29, 2012, final rulemaking 

approving several BART 

determinations, there are no outstanding 

regional haze SIP elements requiring 

action. 

Regarding the comments on the 

relationship between CAIR and the 

regional haze SIP, Florida set its RPGs 

based on modeled projections of future 

conditions that were developed using 

the best available information at the 

time the modeling analysis was 

performed. Given the requirement in 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi) that states must 

take into account the visibility 

improvement that is expected to result 

from the implementation of other CAA 

requirements, Florida set its RPGs 

based, in part, on the emissions 

reductions expected to be achieved by 

CAIR and other measures being 

implemented across the southeast 

region as modeled for Florida by the 

Visibility Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS).5

Although Florida no longer relies on 

CAIR to satisfy regional haze 

requirements for any sources within the 

State, the underlying emissions 

inventories and projections of 

reductions from upwind states continue 

to include assumptions based on the 

implementation of CAIR. As CAIR has 

been remanded by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit or Court), some of 

the assumptions underlying the 

development of this element of the 

RPGs may change. EPA has determined 

that this reliance on CAIR in upwind 

states in the underlying analysis does 

not require EPA to withhold full 

approval of Florida’s regional haze SIP. 

The 2008 remand of CAIR was followed 

by a 2012 decision in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘EME Homer City’’), 696 

F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted 570 

U.S. (June 24, 2013) (No. 12–1182), to 

vacate CSAPR and keep CAIR in place 

pending the promulgation of a valid 

replacement rule. In this unique 

circumstance, EPA believes that full 

approval of the SIP submission is 

appropriate. To the extent that Florida 

is relying on emissions reductions 

associated with the implementation of 

CAIR in other states in its regional haze 

SIP, the recent directive from the D.C. 

Circuit in EME Homer City ensures that 

the reductions associated with CAIR 

will be sufficiently permanent and 

enforceable for the first implementation 

period ending in 2018. EPA has been 

ordered by the court to develop a new 

rule and the opinion makes clear that 

after promulgating that new rule, EPA 

must provide states an opportunity to 

draft and submit SIPs to implement that 

rule. Thus, CAIR cannot be replaced 

until EPA has promulgated a final rule 

through a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking process, states have had an 

opportunity to draft and submit regional 

haze SIPs, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to 

determine if they can be approved, and 

EPA has taken action on the SIPs, 

including promulgating a Federal 

implementation plan, if appropriate. 

These steps alone will take many years, 

even with EPA and the states acting 

expeditiously. The Court’s clear 

instruction to EPA that it must continue 

to administer CAIR until a ‘‘valid 

replacement’’ exists provides an 

additional backstop; by definition, any 

rule that replaces CAIR and meets the 

Court’s direction would require upwind 

states to eliminate significant 

downwind contributions. Further, in 

vacating CSAPR and requiring EPA to 

continue administering CAIR, the D.C. 

Circuit emphasized that the 

consequences of vacating CAIR ‘‘might 

be more severe now in light of the 

reliance interests accumulated over the 

intervening four years.’’ EME Homer 

City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated 

reliance interests include the interests of 

states who reasonably assumed they 

could rely on reductions associated with 

CAIR to meet certain regional haze 

requirements. For these reasons also, 

EPA believes it is appropriate to allow 

Florida to rely on reductions associated 

with CAIR in other states as sufficiently 

permanent and enforceable pending a 

valid replacement rule for purposes 

such as evaluating RPGs in the regional 

haze program. Following promulgation 

of the replacement rule, EPA will 

review regional haze SIPs as appropriate 

to identify whether there are any issues 

that need to be addressed. 

EPA believes the Commenter 

overstates the overarching nature of the 

changes due to the CAIR remand. Many 

of the emissions units subject to 

reasonable progress analysis either have 

already reduced SO2 emissions or will 

be reducing SO2 emissions in the near 

future. These reductions are the result of 

company decisions to shut-down or repower certain units or to install new 

control equipment (e.g., scrubbers) in 

response to CAIR. Furthermore, Florida 

has reviewed the facilities subject to 

BART or reasonable progress analysis 

on a case-by-case basis and has 

developed BART or reasonable progress 

requirements for the sources for which 

additional controls were appropriate. 

EPA expects these BART and reasonable 

progress requirements to provide 

benefits similar to or greater than those 

provided by CAIR. In fact, as Florida 

notes in its September 17, 2012, SIP 

amendment, EGU emissions in 2010 

were already lower than the projected 

emissions for 2018 used in the State’s 

RPG analysis. In addition, unlike the 

enforceable emissions limitations and 

other enforceable measures in the LTS, 

RPGs are not directly enforceable. See 

64 FR 35733; 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v). 

Because the projected SO2 emissions 

reductions are sufficient to meet the 

RPGs, and because actual emissions in 

2010 have been shown to be lower than 

projected emissions for 2018, EPA is 

approving Florida’s RPGs and LTS. 

As noted in the May 25, 2012, 

proposal, EPA believes that the five-year 

progress report is the appropriate time 

to address any changes, if necessary, to 

the RPG demonstration and/or the LTS. 

EPA expects that this demonstration 

will address the impacts on the RPGs of 

any needed adjustments to the projected 

2018 emissions due to updated 

information on the emissions for EGUs 

and other sources and source categories. 

If this assessment determines that an 

adjustment to Florida’s regional haze 

SIP is necessary, EPA regulations 

require a SIP revision within a year of 

the five-year progress report. See 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(4). 

Comment 2: The Commenter contends 

that EPA cannot approve Florida’s RPGs 

in a manner consistent with the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

because the Agency did not specifically 

state that it was proposing to approve 

the RPGs in the May 25, 2012, action. 

Response 2: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter that the public was not 

provided adequate notice that the 

Agency was proposing approval of the 

RPGs included in Florida’s regional 

haze SIP and that the public did not 

have a meaningful opportunity to 

comment on such a proposed approval. 

In the May 25, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking, EPA explicitly and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

53254 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

6EPA also stated that it would address the 18 

reasonable progress units and 11 facilities with 

BART-eligible EGUs subject to CAIR (a total of 20 

EGUs) that were not covered by Florida’s April 13, 

2012, SIP submittal in a subsequent action. See, 

e.g., 77 FR 31254, 31256. 

7Processing 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 (see footnote 3, May 

25, 2012, 77 FR 31242). 

repeatedly stated that it proposed to 

grant limited approval to the State’s 

March 19, 2010, August 31, 2010, and 

April 13, 2012, regional haze SIP 

submittals.6 See, e.g., 77 FR 31242, 

31261. EPA described the content of 

these submittals in the action and 

included them in the docket. For 

example, in Section V.7 (77 FR 31259), 

entitled ‘‘RPGs,’’ EPA discussed the 

RPGs included in Florida’s SIP subject 

to the rulemaking action. 

As stated in the May 25, 2012, action, 

a limited approval results in approval of 

the entire SIP with regards to regional 

haze, even of those parts that are 

deficient, preventing EPA from granting 

a full approval.7 Because EPA identified 

the RPGs as part of Florida’s regional 

haze SIP and stated that its proposed 

action would act as approval of 

Florida’s entire regional haze SIP, the 

public was provided with adequate 

notice that EPA’s action included 

approval of Florida’s RPGs. 

Furthermore, in the December 10, 2012, 

action, EPA explicitly stated that it was 

proposing full approval of the entire 

regional haze SIP due to the changes 

made in Florida’s September 17, 2012, 

final regional haze SIP amendment to 

address the deficiencies leading to the 

proposed limited approval and limited 

disapproval actions. It is not necessary 

or practical for EPA to single out every 

element of a SIP submission and 

expressly state that it is acting on each 

element when it proposes to act on the 

SIP submission as a whole. See, e.g., 

Tucker v. Atwood, 880 F.2d 1250, 1251 

(11th Cir. 1989) (explaining that a 

rulemaking notice under Section 553(b) 

of the APA ‘‘requires no more than ‘. . . 

a description of the subjects and issues 

involved.’ ’’); Lloyd Noland Hosp. & 

Clinic v. Heckler, 762 F.2d 1561, 1565 

(11th Cir. 1985) (noting that a 

rulemaking notice ‘‘is adequate if ‘it 

affords interested parties a reasonable 

opportunity to participate in the 

rulemaking process.’ ’’); Forester v. 

Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 559 

F.2d 774, 787 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (‘‘Section 

553(b) does not require that interested 

parties be provided precise notice of 

each aspect of the regulations eventually 

adopted. Rather, notice is sufficient if it 

affords interested parties a reasonable 

opportunity to participate in the 

rulemaking process.’’). 

EPA’s proposal to approve the RPGs 

is also evident through language in 

Section V.7 of the May 25, 2012, action 

stating that the modeling supporting the 

analysis of these RPGs is consistent with 

EPA guidance prior to the CAIR remand 

and that the RPGs for the Class I areas 

in Florida are based on modeled 

projections of future conditions that 

were developed using the best available 

information at the time the analysis was 

done. EPA also explained the 

requirements for a review of the 

reasonableness of this estimate as part of 

the mid-course review and notes that 

FDEP has committed to follow this 

process. 

In addition, the proposed limited SIP 

disapproval for Florida and other states 

(December 30, 2011, 76 FR 82219) 

referenced in Section I of the May 25, 

2012, proposal action (77 FR 31242) was 

explicit that EPA was not proposing to 

disapprove the RPGs for 2018 and that 

EPA believed that the five-year progress 

report was the appropriate time to 

address any changes to the RPG 

demonstration and, if necessary, the 

LTS. See 76 FR 82229. For all of the 

reasons discussed above, EPA’s 

intention to approve the RPGs for 

Florida was clear, unambiguous, and 

consistent with the requirements of the 

APA. 

Comment 3: The Commenter does not 

believe that EPA can approve Florida’s 

RPGs because the State must re-evaluate 

its demonstration of reasonable progress 

based on concrete, definite reductions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants that 

result only from those programs and 

emissions limits that are legally in force. 

The Commenter states that there is no 

lawful or rational basis for assuming 

that the reasonable progress projected 

by Florida will occur because the State’s 

RPGs rely on CAIR, ‘‘a temporary 

program due to the CAIR remand.’’ The 

Commenter also asserts that Florida’s 

RPGs should be disapproved because 

they ‘‘rely upon other control programs 

whose benefits are far from certain’’ 

(e.g., Atlanta/Birmingham/Northern 

Kentucky 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area SIP; consent decrees 

for Tampa Electric, Virginia Electric and 

Power Company, and Gulf Power-Plant 

Crist; Industrial Boiler Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT)). The Commenter also takes 

issue with EPA’s assertion that Florida 

may address any discrepancies between 

projected emissions and actual 

reductions in the five-year progress 

report and contends that the five-year 

review of RPGs is not a lawful or 

rational basis for approving the SIP. 

Response 3: The technical 

information provided in the docket 

demonstrates that the emissions 

inventory in the SIP adequately reflects 

projected 2018 conditions and should 

be approved. In addition, EPA does not 

believe that the State’s reliance on CAIR 

in developing its RPGs affects EPA’s 

ability to approve these RPGs for the 

reasons discussed in the response to 

Comment 1. EPA does not expect that 

the other inventory differences like 

those alleged, even if they occur, would 

affect the adequacy of Florida’s regional 

haze SIP. The RPGs are based on 

emissions estimates and modeling 

conducted by VISTAS for its 10 member 

states, including Florida, which reflect 

Florida’s best estimate of expected 

conditions in 2018 during the period 

that the initial March 19, 2010, regional 

haze SIP submittal was developed. 

Florida’s 2018 projections are based 

on the State’s technical analysis of the 

anticipated emissions rates and level of 

activity for EGUs, other point sources, 

non-point sources, on-road sources, and 

off-road sources based on their 

emissions in the 2002 base year, 

considering growth and additional 

emissions controls to be in place and 

federally enforceable by 2018. The 

emissions inventory used in the regional 

haze technical analyses that was 

developed by VISTAS with assistance 

from Florida projected 2002 emissions 

(the latest region-wide inventory 

available at the time the SIP submittal 

was being developed) and applied 

reductions expected from Federal and 

state regulations affecting the emissions 

of VOC and the visibility impairing 

pollutants NOX, particulate matter (PM), 

and SO2. It is expected that individual 

projections within a statewide inventory 

will vary from actual emissions over a 

16-year period (i.e., 2002–2018 for the 

first implementation period). For 

example, some facilities shut down 

whereas others expand operations. 

Furthermore, economic projections and 

population changes used to estimate 

growth often differ from actual events; 

new rules are modified, changing their 

expected effectiveness; and 

methodologies to estimate emissions 

improve, modifying emissions 

estimates. 

In the regional haze program, 

uncertainties associated with modeled 

emissions projections into the future are 

addressed through the requirement 

under the RHR to submit periodic 

progress reports in the form of a SIP 

revision. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.308(g) 

requires each state to submit a report 

every five years evaluating progress 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53255 

toward the RPGs for each mandatory 

Class I area located in the state and for 

each Class I area outside the state that 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the state. To minimize the 

differences between projected emissions 

and what will actually occur at the end 

of the implementation period, the RHR 

requires that the five-year review 

address any expected significant 

differences due to changed 

circumstances from the initial projected 

emissions, provide updated 

expectations regarding emissions for the 

implementation period, and evaluate 

the impact of these differences on RPGs. 

The five-year review is a mechanism 

to assure that these expected differences 

between projected and actual emissions 

(in this case, for the year 2018) are 

considered and that their impact on the 

RPGs (in this case, for the year 2018) is 

evaluated. Despite the Commenter’s 

claims to the contrary, the projections 

included in the SIP are still reasonably 

robust projections of emissions expected 

in 2018 and reflect a reasonable estimate 

of visibility conditions in 2018. EPA 

does not expect the five-year review will 

result in wholesale changes to emissions 

or visibility estimates and regards the 

regulatory process established in the 

RHR to be appropriate. The State’s 

analysis of projected emissions and its 

reliance on these projections to establish 

its RPGs meets the requirements of the 

RHR and EPA guidance and adequately 

reflects the best estimate of expected 

ambient conditions in 2018. 

Comment 4: The Commenter states 

that because the RPGs for Florida’s Class 

I areas fail to meet uniform rate of 

progress (URP) projections for 2018 for 

two Class I areas, and ‘‘barely meet URP 

for others,’’ the RPGs are arbitrary and 

unlawful. The Commenter believes that 

without CAIR, or any other 

comprehensive SO2 control program, 

there is no rational basis for finding that 

Florida’s RPGs and LTS will provide 

reasonable progress. The Commenter 

also states that Florida has not provided 

an explanation why it was reasonable 

for the State to fall short of the URP for 

the St. Marks Class I area (located in 

Florida) and the Okefenokee Class I area 

(located in Georgia) based upon the four 

reasonable progress factors and that EPA 

may not approve the RPGs until Florida 

provides such an explanation and has 

subjected it to notice and comment. The 

Commenter states that EPA and Florida 

lack factual support for the position that 

Florida is likely to do better than 

predicted once it makes final BART and 

reasonable progress determinations and 

that Florida’s claims of progress illegally 

and irrationally rely on emissions 

reductions from the CAIR program. 

Even then, according to the Commenter, 

the plan fails to assure progress 

sufficient to achieve the URP at two 

Class I areas and just barely provides for 

such progress at others. 

Response 4: As stated in the proposal, 

the RHR does not mandate specific 

milestones or rates of progress, but 

instead calls for states to establish goals 

that provide for ‘‘reasonable progress’’ 

toward achieving natural (i.e., 

‘‘background’’) visibility conditions. In 

setting RPGs, states must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days over the first 

implementation period of the SIP and 

ensure no degradation in visibility for 

the least impaired days over the same 

period. States have significant 

discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 

required to consider the following 

factors established in section 169A of 

the CAA and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

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

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

flexibility in how they take these factors 

into consideration. 

Florida followed EPA guidance and 

the RHR in preparing its RPGs. The 

State projects that it will meet the URP 

at two of its Federal Class I areas and 

falls just 0.03 deciview (dv) short of the 

URP at St. Marks. Florida stated in its 

September 12, 2012, SIP submittal that 

many of the sources that were projected 

to reduce emissions due to CAIR have 

shut down or re-powered (providing 

greater reductions than projected from 

emissions controls). The State’s SIP 

submittal also notes that the projected 

reductions from the Industrial Boiler 

MACT Rule and EPA’s Utility Mercury 

and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule 

appear to be providing greater SO2

reductions than expected when they 

were evaluated and modeled for 

reasonable progress. With regard to 

Florida’s assessment of CAIR sources, 

Florida has reviewed all the facilities 

subject to BART or reasonable progress 

analysis on a case-by-case basis and 

determined BART or reasonable 

progress requirements for the remaining 

sources for which additional controls 

were appropriate. 

EPA expects these BART and 

reasonable progress requirements to 

provide similar or greater benefits than 

CAIR. As noted in the September 17, 

2012, Florida SIP submittal, emissions 

from Florida EGUs in 2010 were already 

below the emissions levels projected for 

2018 without these additional BART 

limitations. As Florida stated on page 

174 in its September 2012, SIP 

submittal, ‘‘[t]hese modeling results 

were used to set the reasonable progress 

goals. Because not all expected 

reductions were included in the final 

modeling runs (due to timing of the runs 

to be complete in time for SIP 

submittals), reductions will likely be 

greater when all BART reductions and 

reasonable measures are taken into 

account.’’ In summary, Florida believes 

that the RPGs remain valid and that no 

further assessment is necessary for this 

first implementation period and EPA 

agrees with this assessment. 

In addition, while SO2 reductions due 

to the original Industrial Boiler MACT 

Rule are included in the 2018 emissions 

projection, the revised Industrial Boiler 

MACT Rule is expected to result in even 

greater emissions reductions than those 

reductions previously accounted for and 

evaluated as part of the 2018 projections 

presented in the submittal. In summary, 

although the sources and control 

strategies evaluated as part of the 

VISTAS process result in a RPG that is 

0.03 dv less than the URP projection, 

Florida asserts, and EPA agrees, that the 

emissions reductions resulting from 

existing regulations, plus additional 

reductions from the newly-promulgated 

Industrial Boiler MACT, will result in 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ that meets or 

exceeds the URP in all of the Florida 

Class I areas. 

Comment 5: The Commenter contends 

that Florida must ‘‘go beyond the 

uniform rate of progress analysis to 

evaluate whether greater progress than 

the uniform rate is reasonable’’ and that 

the SIP is deficient because the State has 

not provided such an evaluation. 

Response 5: EPA affirmed in the RHR 

that the URP is not a ‘‘presumptive 

target.’’ Rather, it is an analytical 

requirement for setting RPGs. See 64 FR 

35731–32. If a state sets an RPG that 

provides a slower rate of visibility 

improvement than the URP, a state must 

demonstrate that the RPG is nonetheless 

reasonable and that it is unreasonable to 

meet the URP for the Class I area at 

issue. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii). The RHR 

does not require a state to evaluate 

whether it would be reasonable to set a 

RPG that would achieve greater 

visibility improvement than the URP. In 

determining RPGs for Florida’s Class I 

areas, the State identified sources 

eligible for a reasonable progress control 

evaluation using certain selection 

criteria (also described in response to 

Comment 6 and at 77 FR 31251) and 

described those evaluations in its SIP. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

53256 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

8Florida only used a Q/d threshold to identify 

sources subject to a reasonable progress analysis. 

EPA has assumed that the Commenter intended to 

refer to the reasonable progress analysis rather than 

to ‘‘BART exemption modeling’’ and has responded 

accordingly. 

9 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 

Under the Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 

(‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), located at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/

reasonable_progress_guid071307.pdf,. 

Florida performed this reasonable 

progress evaluation in accordance with 

EPA regulations and guidance. 

Comment 6: The Commenter states 

that Florida’s identification of sources to 

assess for reasonable progress is flawed 

and cannot be approved by EPA because 

the State selected sources for reasonable 

progress control based upon its 

assumption that CAIR would maintain 

reasonable progress towards visibility 

goals during the first implementation 

period (i.e., the Commenter believes that 

the State relied on CAIR to reduce the 

number of sources evaluated for 

reasonable progress controls). The 

Commenter also states that because 

Florida expected ‘‘visibility in Class I 

areas to improve at or very near the 

nominal straight line path to the 2064 

goal’’ based on this assumption, it 

selected a ratio of source emissions 

(‘‘Q’’) divided by distance from a Class 

I area (‘‘d’’) of 50 as the threshold for 

reasonable progress evaluation (five 

times the nominal significance criteria) 

and that Florida narrowed the field 

further by eliminating units that emit 

less than 250 tons per year of SO2 and 

are more than 300 kilometers (km) from 

a Class I area, ‘‘leaving 16 of these very 

large sources unconsidered for RP 

controls.’’ The Commenter states that 

Florida’s approach, in CAIR’s absence, 

now falls ‘‘well short of the [RHR’s] 

mandate that the state ‘consider major 

and minor stationary sources, mobile 

sources, and area sources’ as it develops 

emissions limitations’’ and to include 

all ‘‘measures necessary to achieve the 

RPGs.’’ The Commenter does not believe 

that EPA can approve Florida’s 

approach unless the State can 

demonstrate that its methodology is 

warranted even in CAIR’s absence and 

that, without CAIR in place, Florida 

acted arbitrarily in increasing the 

nominal significance criteria. 

According to the Commenter, the 

State must revise its Q/d threshold for 

its BART exemption modeling to 

‘‘rationally identify those sources which 

may cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in one or more Class I 

areas.’’ 8 The Commenter also believes 

that Florida’s approach was flawed 

because it was based solely on SO2

emissions; the State’s LTS should have 

also considered reducing NOX and NH3

emissions; sulfate emissions account for 

only 30–60 percent of the impairment at 

the Everglades Class I area; and Florida 

excluded all sources that commenced 

construction or submitted a complete 

application after August 30, 1999, from 

its reasonable progress review. 

Therefore, the Commenter believes that 

Florida arbitrarily ignored a large 

percentage of sources that emit visibility 

impairing pollutants. 

Response 6: States are required to 

consider the improvement expected 

from existing CAA programs (such as 

CAIR for affected states) in setting their 

RPGs. Thus, Florida appropriately 

factored in the expected emissions 

reductions and resulting visibility 

improvement from the implementation 

of CAIR in setting its RPGs. However, 

the identification of the major sources in 

Florida contributing to visibility 

impairment and the necessary emissions 

reductions from these sources was not 

winnowed because of CAIR. As 

discussed below, Florida established 

and applied certain criteria to identify 

for a reasonable progress control 

evaluation the largest known sources of 

SO2 having the potential to impair 

visibility in Class I areas. The Florida 

LTS was developed by the State, in 

coordination with the VISTAS RPO, 

through an evaluation of the following 

components: (1) Identification of the 

emissions units within Florida and in 

surrounding states that likely have the 

largest impacts currently on visibility at 

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

of emissions reductions for 2018 based 

on all controls required or expected 

under Federal and state regulations for 

the 2004–2018 period (including 

BART); (3) comparison of projected 

visibility improvement with the URP for 

the State’s Class I areas; and (4) 

application of the four statutory factors 

in the reasonable progress analysis for 

the identified emissions units to 

determine if additional controls were 

reasonable. 

As discussed in EPA’s May 25, 2012, 

proposal, Florida’s assessment 

concluded that ammonium sulfate is the 

largest contributor to visibility 

impairment at the State’s Class I areas 

as a whole. See 77 FR 31250. For the 

Chassahowitzka and St. Marks Class I 

areas, these ammonium sulfate particles, 

resulting from SO2 emissions, contribute 

roughly 71 percent of the calculated 

light extinction on the haziest days, and 

in Everglades National Park, the 

ammonium sulfate contribution was 40 

percent of the calculated light extinction 

on the haziest days (due to a greater 

relative influence from organic carbon). 

Visibility impairment at Everglades 

National Park is occasionally dominated 

by organic carbon emissions due to 

lower SO2 emissions in South Florida 

and the park’s greater distance from 

large continental SO2 emissions sources. 

However, controlling anthropogenic 

carbon emissions sources was 

determined not to be a viable strategy 

for improving visibility for the first 

implementation period because the 

organic carbon emissions are primarily 

biogenic in origin. Therefore, reduction 

of SO2 emissions would be the most 

effective means of reducing visibility 

impairment at Florida’s Class I areas. 

Because over 85 percent of 2002 SO2

emissions in Florida were attributable to 

EGUs and industrial point sources, EPA 

considers Florida’s decision to focus on 

SO2 emissions from these facilities as a 

reasonable application of EPA’s 

Guidance for Setting Reasonable 

Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze 

Program 9 (EPA’s Reasonable Progress 

Guidance). 

The State then considered three 

variables that each play a strong role in 

determining the impact any source may 

have on a particular Class I area. The 

first variable is the amount of SO2

emissions (the greater the emissions, the 

more likely a source may impact 

visibility); the second variable is 

distance to a Class I area (visibility 

impacts decrease as distance from a 

Class I area increases); and the third 

variable is frequency of winds 

(residence time) in the direction of the 

Class I area from the source (trajectory 

analysis). The VISTAS States 

considered a number of different 

combinations of these variables as a 

surrogate for visibility impact. 

The Commenter raises concerns 

relating to the Q/d threshold for BART 

exemption modeling in Florida. To 

clarify, the State used the Q/d metric as 

a threshold to identify those sources of 

SO2 subject to a reasonable progress 

control evaluation, not for BART 

evaluations. Florida chose to develop a 

reasonable progress source-selection 

metric based on Q/d that would be 

essentially equivalent to the VISTAS 

metric with several differences. Florida 

chose to use 2002 emissions for Q, 

instead of the 2018 projections that 

VISTAS used in its suggested 

methodology for determining sources 

subject to a reasonable progress 

evaluation developed by its member 

states. Because the Integrated Planning 

Model (IPM) projected conversion of 

virtually all of the oil-fired boilers in 

Florida to natural gas, using 2018 

emissions estimates of SO2 from these 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53257 

10The 2005 VISTAS protocol is located at: http:// 

www.vistas-sesarm.org/BART/

VISTASBARTModelingProtocol_Dec222005.pdf. 

11Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related 

Values Work Group (FLAG), Phase I Report— 

Revised (2010) http://nature.nps.gov/air/pubs/pdf/

flag/FLAG_2010.pdf. 

12EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance, 

page 4–2. 

13The federally enforceable SO2 emissions 

limitations are 0.2 pound per million British 

Thermal Units (lb/MMBtu) heat input, 24-hour 

average, and 0.15 lb/MMBtu heat input, 30-day 

rolling average. 

sources would have exempted these 

units from reasonable progress review. 

Thus, the approach Florida used was 

more likely to result in selection of 

certain larger SO2 sources for reasonable 

progress control analysis. 

As a general strategy, Florida did not 

want to base its selection of sources for 

a reasonable progress review on the 

IPM’s prediction of how the CAIR 

market-based reductions will occur. 

Rather, Florida chose to use criteria that 

would include the known largest 

sources having the greatest potential to 

impair visibility and that would ensure 

that these sources are addressed through 

the reasonable progress process. 

Because the State was evaluating 

existing sources for additional control, 

rather than simply screening whether a 

proposed new facility warranted further 

evaluation, Florida chose a Q/d 

threshold equal to 50 rather than 10 to 

assure that many of the largest sources 

of SO2 nearest the Class I areas were 

required to address reasonable progress, 

while smaller sources (not expected to 

provide significant, cost-effective 

reductions) were excluded. Similarly, 

Florida provided some bounds for the Q 

and d values. The State excluded small 

(< 250 tons per year) units because any 

reductions from theses sources would 

likely be small and not very costeffective for the first implementation 

period. Also, Florida’s decision to 

consider only sources within 300 km of 

a Class I area was consistent with the 

bounds used in the protocol developed 

by VISTAS, Protocol for the Application 

of the CALPUFF Model for Analyses of 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART),10 dated December 22, 2005, for 

the BART-exemption analysis. Finally, 

Florida only considered sources that 

commenced construction or submitted a 

complete application prior to August 30, 

1999. This date was chosen because, 

under Florida’s permit review process, 

all permits issued after that date require 

that visibility specifically be addressed. 

Hence, it is unlikely that additional 

cost-effective controls would be 

identified. 

EPA disagrees that Florida’s Q/d 

threshold must be revised. The guidance 

referenced by the Commenter is not 

directly relevant to the process 

developed by Florida for screening 

sources for a reasonable progress 

analysis during the first implementation 

period.11 This guidance, issued by the 

Federal Land Managers in 2010, refers 

to the initial screening test for new or 

modified sources subject to EPA’s New 

Source Review (NSR) regulations to 

determine whether a visibility 

evaluation is necessary for these 

proposed new sources. This document 

is not part of the guidance developed by 

EPA or used by states to develop their 

long-term strategies for regional haze. 

As noted in EPA’s Reasonable 

Progress Guidance 12 and discussed 

further in EPA’s May 25, 2012, proposal 

action on the Florida regional haze SIP 

(77 FR 31250), the RHR gives states 

wide latitude to determine additional 

control requirements, and there are 

many ways to approach identifying 

additional reasonable measures as long 

as the four statutory factors are 

considered. Florida explained that its 

intent in choosing a Q/d threshold of 50 

was to assure that many of the largest 

sources of SO2 that are closest to the 

Class I areas were required to address 

reasonable progress, while smaller 

sources (not expected to provide 

significant, cost-effective reductions in 

the first implementation period) were 

excluded. EPA finds this explanation to 

be reasonable. Florida also included a 

comparison between its methodology 

and the VISTAS methodology and 

demonstrated that the differences were 

minimal. For example, 15 units that 

were identified by the VISTAS 

methodology were exempted under 

Florida’s method, but Florida also 

identified nine additional units for 

analysis that the VISTAS method would 

have excluded. Of the 15 units 

identified by the VISTAS methodology 

but excluded by the Florida 

methodology, nine have a Q/d of less 

than 17 and five others are BARTsubject sources. EPA regards the Florida 

methodology as an acceptable approach 

for determining the sources that should 

be subject to a reasonable progress 

analysis for the first implementation 

period. 

Comment 7: The Commenter contends 

that EPA cannot approve Florida’s 

reasonable progress control 

determinations as proposed because the 

State’s reasonable progress analysis 

relies on CAIR or CSAPR. The 

Commenter believes that trading 

programs such as CAIR and CSAPR are 

not reliable guarantors of emissions 

controls under the regional haze 

program (incorporating by reference its 

February 28, 2012, comments on EPA’s 

proposed rule to find that CSAPR is 

better than BART). The Commenter also 

states that EPA’s analysis and approval 

of CSAPR as being better than BART 

does not validate the use of the CSAPR 

for reasonable progress as a matter of 

course and that such a determination 

must be made on a state-by-state basis, 

upon consideration of whether CSAPR 

assures reasonable progress or if further 

controls are required. Additionally, the 

Commenter does not believe that 

CSAPR can assure reasonable progress 

because CSAPR controls only ozone 

season NOX in Florida, while Florida 

has determined that the bulk of 

visibility impairment at its Class I areas 

is due to SO2 emissions. 

Response 7: EPA addressed the 

Commenter’s February 28, 2012, 

comments on CSAPR in its June 7, 2012, 

better-than-BART action (77 FR 33642). 

Regarding the comments about a 

relationship between CAIR, CSAPR, and 

reasonable progress in Florida, see the 

response to Comment 1. EPA did not 

propose in its May 25, 2012, action, and 

is not approving in this action, a 

conclusion that no additional controls 

for EGUs in Florida beyond CAIR or 

CSAPR are reasonable in the first 

implementation period. The State 

performed source-by-source analyses of 

the SO2 emissions control alternatives 

for the affected facilities and made caseby-case reasonable progress 

determinations for each of these 

sources. EPA is relying on these 

analyses to address reasonable progress 

requirements. The State has adequately 

justified focusing on SO2 emissions for 

its reasonable progress demonstration, 

as discussed in the response to 

Comment 6, and did not consider 

additional NOX reductions in its 

reasonable progress demonstration for 

this implementation period. 

Comment 8: The Commenter does not 

believe that EPA can approve Florida’s 

exemption of JEA Northside Unit 27 

from a reasonable progress analysis on 

the grounds that it took permit limits in 

2009 to limit its SO2 emissions.13 The 

Commenter believes that Florida’s 

exclusion of this facility from a 

reasonable progress analysis is arbitrary 

and inconsistent with the RHR because 

visibility impacts are measured based 

on a one-hour averaging time and the 

Commenter does not believe that these 

federally enforceable limits ensure that 

short-term visibility impacts are not 

experienced in the Okefenokee Class I 

area. The Commenter states that these 

permit limits must be modified to 

provide for a one-hour averaging time 

unless there is a ‘‘reasoned and factually 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

53258 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

14 Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the 

Regional Haze Rule (‘‘BART Guidelines’’), 40 CFR 

part 51 Appendix Y. 

15 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, IV.E.4. 

supported explanation in the SIP as to 

why short-term visibility impacts will 

not occur despite the permit’s relatively 

long averaging times.’’ 

Response 8: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s contention that the 

differences in averaging time identified 

in the comment should affect the 

Agency’s findings and conclusions for 

Northside Unit 27.’’ The reasonable 

progress evaluation is performed for the 

20 percent best and worst days. While 

EPA does assess Interagency Monitoring 

of Protected Visual Environments 

(‘‘IMPROVE’’) samples over a 24-hour 

time period (not hourly as stated by the 

Commenter), none of the visibility 

program requirements are based on 

these 24-hour peaks. Both the 20 

percent best days and 20 percent worst 

days represent an average over one-fifth 

of monitored days of the year. Because 

this is a relatively long time period, it 

tends to ‘‘smooth out’’ any variations 

that would occur over a shorter time 

period. EPA finds no reason to believe 

that there is a need to address any 

potential short-term variations in 

emissions with a short-term emissions 

limit. 

Comment 9: The Commenter does not 

believe that EPA’s May 25, 2012, 

proposal states the Agency’s intentions 

with sufficient clarity or that EPA can 

approve SIP components that it has not 

clearly proposed to approve in the 

notice. According to the Commenter, 

EPA has not met the APA’s notice and 

comment provisions governing 

rulemaking requiring that an agency 

clearly state what it is proposing so that 

members of the public have adequate 

notice and can offer informed comment. 

The Commenter provides two examples 

of instances where it believes that EPA 

has not clearly stated whether it is 

proposing approval or disapproval of a 

particular SIP component (i.e., RPGs 

and the reasonable progress 

demonstration). 

Response 9: As discussed in the 

response to Comment 2, EPA disagrees 

there was any ambiguity in its clearly 

stated intention in the May 25, 2012, 

proposed rulemaking action to grant 

limited approval to the March 19, 2010, 

August 31, 2010, and April 13, 2012, 

Florida regional haze SIP submittals and 

the Agency’s position that the limited 

approval acted as approval of these SIP 

submittals in their entirety. EPA 

devoted significant text in the May 25, 

2012, rulemaking notice to RPGs and 

the reasonable progress demonstrations, 

and included the three SIP submittals 

(subject to the proposed action) in the 

docket for public review. Because EPA 

identified the RPGs and reasonable 

progress demonstrations as part of the 

SIP, and stated that its proposed action 

would act as approval of the entire three 

regional haze SIP submittals, the public 

was provided with adequate notice that 

EPA’s action included approval of 

Florida’s RPGs and reasonable progress 

demonstrations. Furthermore, in the 

December 10, 2012, action, EPA 

explicitly stated that it was proposing 

full approval of the entire regional haze 

SIP due to the changes made in 

Florida’s September 17, 2012, final 

regional haze SIP amendment to address 

the deficiencies leading to the proposed 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval actions. 

It is not necessary or practical for EPA 

to single out every element of a SIP 

submittal and expressly state that it is 

acting on each element when it 

proposes to act on the SIP as a whole. 

See, e.g., Tucker v. Atwood, 880 F.2d at 

1251 (explaining that a rulemaking 

action under Section 553(b) of the APA 

‘‘requires no more than ‘. . . a 

description of the subjects and issues 

involved.’ ’’); Lloyd Noland Hosp. & 

Clinic v. Heckler, 762 F.2d at 1565 

(noting that a rulemaking notice ‘‘is 

adequate if ‘it affords interested parties 

a reasonable opportunity to participate 

in the rulemaking process.’ ’’); Forester 

v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 559 

F.2d at 787 (‘‘Section 553(b) does not 

require that interested parties be 

provided precise notice of each aspect 

of the regulations eventually adopted. 

Rather, notice is sufficient if it affords 

interested parties a reasonable 

opportunity to participate in the 

rulemaking process.’’). 

Comment 10: The Commenter 

believes that it is improper for EPA to 

withhold full approval of Florida’s 

regional haze SIP because CAIR is still 

in effect. 

Response 10: See the response to 

Comment 1. In this action, EPA is now 

fully approving Florida’s regional haze 

SIP because the State has replaced its 

reliance on CAIR with source-specific 

emissions limitations to satisfy both the 

BART requirements and the 

requirement for a LTS sufficient to 

achieve the state-adopted RPGs. 

B. Response to Comments on the 

December 10, 2012, Proposal 

Lansing Smith 

Comment 11: The Commenter 

contends that FDEP improperly rejected 

wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) as 

BART for Units 1 and 2 at Lansing 

Smith. The Commenter states that it 

would be arbitrary and capricious for 

EPA to approve the BART 

determination because the analysis 

inflated the cost-effectiveness of wet 

FGD by using an emissions limit of 0.15 

lb/MMBtu of SO2 rather than the 

removal efficiency potential of 95 

percent identified by Gulf Power and by 

not evaluating the most stringent control 

efficiency associated with wet FGD 

(asserted to be 98 percent or greater). 

The Commenter also states that wet FGD 

is cost-effective even using the ‘‘flawed’’ 

values provided in the SIP because 

Florida’s values are ‘‘still easily within 

the range which EPA has already 

determined to be cost-effective 

elsewhere’’ and because they are lower 

than cost-effectiveness values associated 

with BART controls adopted by FDEP at 

FPL’s Manatee power plant. 

Response 11: In evaluating the 

statutory BART factors for FGD, FDEP 

most heavily weighed the lack of 

visibility improvement associated with 

this control technology for Lansing 

Smith, not the cost of control. States 

have the flexibility to determine the 

weight and significance of each factor. 

See, e.g., 70 FR 39123, 39153, 39170 

(July 6, 2005). As discussed in EPA’s 

December 10, 2012, proposal, the model 

predicted limited visibility 

improvements considering both the 

absolute visibility benefits of FGD from 

the baseline as well as the incremental 

benefits from the use of FGD over dry 

sorbent injection (DSI). FDEP concluded 

that the predicted incremental 

improvements in visibility of 0.07 dv for 

Unit 1 and 0.09 dv for Unit 2 for the 

98th percentile highest day over three 

years were not sufficient in light of the 

costs to warrant the selection of FGD as 

BART, regardless of whether FGD is 

cost-effective on a dollars per ton basis. 

EPA agrees that if FDEP had assumed 

either a 95 percent or 98 percent 

removal efficiency for wet FGD, then 

Florida’s cost-effectiveness values 

would have been slightly lower, while 

the modeled visibility improvement 

would have been slightly higher. As 

explained in EPA’s BART Guidelines,14

however, sources evaluating postcombustion SO2 controls can consider a 

presumptive limit of either 95 percent 

control or 0.15 lb/MMBtu when 

performing a five-factor BART 

analysis.15 Therefore, while FDEP could 

have used a higher removal efficiency in 

evaluating wet FGD, EPA believes that 

it was reasonable for FDEP to conduct 

its analysis using an emissions limit of 

0.15 lb/MMBtu. Moreover, even had 

FDEP used a higher removal efficiency, 

the incremental visibility improvement 

expected from wet FGD over DSI would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53259 

16 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, IV.D, n.12. 

17 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, IV.D.2, item 5 

under the heading ‘‘What type of demonstration is 

required if I conclude that an option is not 

technically feasible?’’ 

not have increased sufficiently to render 

FDEP’s conclusion unreasonable. 

Comment 12: The Commenter states 

that the visibility benefits associated 

with wet FGD are significant and that it 

is therefore inappropriate for EPA to 

dismiss these improvements. The 

Commenter concludes that EPA has 

overemphasized the incremental 

visibility improvements between wet 

FGD and DSI rather than evaluating the 

overall improvement associated with 

wet FGD and that it is improper for EPA 

to disregard the incremental 

improvements on the basis that they are 

less than 0.5 dv. The Commenter also 

concludes that EPA must consider the 

visibility improvement from wet FGD in 

relation to the statutory goal of 

eliminating visibility impairment. 

According to the Commenter, the 

improvement associated with wet FGD 

is ‘‘significant’’ in light of the 0.244 dv 

annual rate of progress required to 

achieve the national goal at the St. 

Marks Class I area and because the State 

is ‘‘already falling short of the uniform 

rate of progress required to restore 

visibility by 2064’’ at this Class I area. 

The Commenter further states that it 

would be arbitrary and capricious for 

EPA to reject wet FGD based on 

incremental visibility values when the 

incremental benefits from wet FGD are 

greater than the incremental visibility 

improvement between DSI and the 

switch to lower sulfur coal. 

Response 12: See the response to 

Comment 11. FDEP did not summarily 

disregard wet FGD using a 0.5 dv 

threshold. FDEP evaluated the visibility 

improvements associated with wet FGD 

for Lansing Smith under a five-factor 

BART analysis and concluded that these 

improvements were minimal and did 

not warrant the selection of wet FGD as 

BART for the facility. The State has 

flexibility to weigh the five factors. See 

70 FR 39170 (July 6, 2005). As discussed 

in Florida’s regional haze SIP, FDEP 

does not believe that St. Marks will fall 

short of the URP target in light of the 

additional BART and reasonable 

progress measures added to the regional 

haze SIP after the modeling of 

reasonable progress was conducted and 

the retirement and conversion to natural 

gas of several EGUs. Moreover, states 

need not consider the URP at a specific 

Class I area in determining whether the 

visibility benefits associated with a 

given control option warrant its 

selection as BART. The URP is a metric 

that states use in setting their RPGs. A 

state’s RPGs, in turn, need not be met by 

requiring the most stringent control 

technology at a single source, but rather 

can be met with a variety of control 

options and strategies that apply to 

various sources throughout the state. 

Here, EPA concurs with FDEP’s 

assessment that the incremental 

visibility improvements associated with 

wet FGD at Lansing Smith are 

insufficient to warrant the technology’s 

selection as BART. 

Comment 13: The Commenter argues 

that the energy and non-air quality 

issues cited by FDEP (e.g., four 

megawatt (MW) power penalty, 

generation of scrubber waste) are 

immaterial and not sufficient to reject 

wet FGD as BART. 

Response 13: FDEP included an 

evaluation of the energy and non-air 

quality impacts associated with wet 

FGD for completeness because these 

impacts are, collectively, one of the five 

statutory factors to be considered in a 

BART determination. This factor was 

not determinative in this instance 

because FDEP concluded that the 

visibility impacts associated with wet 

FGD for Lansing Smith did not warrant 

selection of this control technology as 

BART for the facility. 

Comment 14: The Commenter 

contends that FDEP improperly rejected 

dry FGD as BART for Units 1 and 2 

because the State did not fully consider 

the technology or provide any evidence 

supporting its cost and control 

efficiency claims that a full analysis is 

not required based on FDEP’s 

determination that dry FGD is more 

expensive than wet FGD and has the 

same or lower control efficiency. The 

Commenter asserts that dry FGD is 

technically feasible and can achieve 

control efficiencies of up to 98 percent 

removal. The Commenter also claims 

that it would be arbitrary and capricious 

for EPA to approve FDEP’s rejection of 

dry FGD at Lansing Smith because the 

State approved the technology as BART 

at Crystal River. 

Response 14: See the response to 

Comment 11. EPA’s BART Guidelines 

provide that in identifying control 

options, states must identify the most 

stringent option and a reasonable set of 

options for analysis that reflects a 

comprehensive list of available 

technologies.16 It is not necessary to list 

all permutations of available control 

levels that exist for a given technology. 

The BART Guidelines also state that a 

‘‘possible outcome of the BART 

procedures discussed in these 

guidelines is the evaluation of multiple 

control technology alternatives which 

result in essentially equivalent 

emissions. It is not our intent to 

encourage evaluation of unnecessarily 

large numbers of control alternatives for 

every emissions unit. Consequently, you 

should use judgment in deciding on 

those alternatives for which you should 

conduct detailed impacts analyses. . . . 

For example, if two or more control 

techniques result in control levels that 

are essentially identical, considering the 

uncertainties of emissions factors and 

other parameters pertinent to estimating 

performance, you may evaluate only the 

less costly of these options.’’ 17 EPA 

does not regard the differences in 

removal efficiency or cost between wet 

FGD and dry FGD to be sufficient in this 

instance to warrant an independent 

assessment of dry FGD as BART for 

Lansing Smith. 

Comment 15: The Commenter 

believes that FDEP’s use of a 0.15 lb/

MMBtu emissions limit underestimates 

the visibility benefits from a FGD 

system because it is equivalent to 89 

percent control. The Commenter alleges 

that a control efficiency of 95 percent or 

98 percent is achievable. 

Response 15: See response to 

Comment 11. Changing the SO2 control 

rate to the level suggested by the 

Commenter would not sufficiently alter 

the results of the modeling analysis for 

Lansing Smith to change the conclusion 

reached by FDEP. Furthermore, FDEP 

appropriately modeled FGD assuming a 

maximum allowable emissions rate of 

0.15 lb/MMBtu. The actual percent 

reduction associated with this limit 

varies depending on the sulfur content 

of the coal burned. Different 

assumptions regarding the sulfur 

content of future coal used would result 

in different estimates of the emissions 

rate. For example, although the 0.15 lb/ 

MMBtu rate results in an approximately 

89.5 percent reduction from baseline 

emissions on an annual basis, it results 

in 93 and 91.5 percent reductions at 

Units 1 and 2, respectively, on the 

maximum actual short-term (24-hour) 

basis used in the baseline visibility 

assessment. Finally, it is also important 

to note that the 0.15 lb/MMBtu limit 

also takes into account emissions from 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

because the BART limit must be met on 

a continuous basis. 

Comment 16: The Commenter 

believes that FDEP underestimated the 

visibility improvement associated with 

wet FGD, thereby making it less costeffective, by only estimating Lansing 

Smith’s visibility impacts on St. Marks, 

the only Class I area within 300 km of 

the facility. The Commenter states that 

EPA must consider CALPUFF modeling 

results from Federal Class I areas 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

53260 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

18http://www.epa.gov/scram001/reports/EPA454_R-12-003.pdf. 

19http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/calpuff/

phase2.pdf, page 18. 

20http://www.epa.gov/scram001/reports/EPA454_R-12-003.pdf, page 10. 

21 40 CFR part 51 Appendix Y, III.A.3, Option 1. 

22http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. 

23http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf. 

beyond 300 km and the cumulative 

visibility impacts across these multiple 

areas. The Commenter cites to a May 

2012 report entitled ‘‘Long Range 

Transport Models Using Tracer Field 

Experiment Data’’ in support of its 

position that changes to CALPUFF since 

the publication of the 1998 Interagency 

Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling 

(IWAQM) Phase 2 guidance requires 

consideration of visibility impacts 

beyond 300 km. The Commenter also 

contends that a rough analysis based on 

the visibility impacts for St. Marks using 

linear and simple Gaussian dispersion 

assumptions reveals that the impacts at 

Class I areas other than St. Marks may 

be significant. 

Response 16: As a general matter, EPA 

agrees that Florida should have 

considered the visibility improvements 

at all affected Class I areas in its BART 

visibility assessments. For the Lansing 

Smith BART analysis, Florida modeled 

visibility impacts at St. Marks, the only 

mandatory Class I Federal area within 

the surrounding 300 km CALPUFF 

modeling domain used by FDEP to 

assess visibility impacts. FDEP 

conducted the visibility modeling 

consistent with the modeling protocol 

that VISTAS developed for preparing 

BART analyses entitled Protocol for the 

Application of the CALPUFF Model for 

Analyses of Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART). (See appendix L of 

the Florida regional haze SIP submittal). 

This modeling protocol was developed 

in a transparent manner involving 

states, EPA, NPS, Fish & Wildlife 

Service (FWS), and any other interested 

entities that wished to participate in the 

public process. The protocol establishes 

300 km as the boundary around a 

BART-subject source in which to model 

potential visibility impacts at Class I 

areas, and consistent with this protocol, 

FDEP modeled the highest visibility 

impact from the nearby Class I areas 

within a 300 km radius of the source. As 

noted above, there are no Class I areas 

other than the St. Marks area within the 

300 km boundary around Lansing 

Smith’s BART-subject units. 

EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s 

assertion that changes to CALPUFF now 

support modeling at distances greater 

than 300 km. The Commenter cited a 

May 2012 technical evaluation 

(Documentation of the Evaluation of 

CALPUFF and Other Long Range 

Transport Models Using Tracer Field 

Experiment Data 18) that evaluates 

several long range transport models 

based on several tracer studies. The 

report cited by the Commenter does not 

refute the IWAQM Phase 2 report which 

states that ‘‘IWAQM recommends use of 

CALPUFF for transport distances of 

order 200 km and less. Use of CALPUFF 

for characterizing transport beyond 200 

to 300 km should be done cautiously 

with an awareness of the likely 

problems involved.’’ 19 In fact, the May 

2012 report further ‘‘emphasizes the 

need for a standardized set of options 

for regulatory CALPUFF modeling.’’ 20

Given these findings, EPA does not 

agree, as the Commenter asserts, that it 

must consider CALPUFF modeling 

results from Federal Class I areas 

beyond 300 km. EPA therefore believes 

that the results of CALPUFF modeling 

beyond 300 km of the source should be 

evaluated in light of the limitations 

discussed in the two guidance 

documents cited above. 

Finally, as discussed in the response 

to Comment 11, FDEP concluded that 

the predicted incremental 

improvements in visibility of 0.07 dv for 

Unit 1 and 0.09 dv for Unit 2 for the 

98th percentile day at St. Marks were 

not sufficient to warrant the selection of 

FGD as BART. The visibility 

improvements associated with FGD for 

the Class I areas outside of the 300 km 

area are expected to be even lower than 

those modeled for St. Marks. EPA does 

not believe that, even had impacts at 

Class I areas beyond 300 km been 

modeled, the visibility benefits of wet 

FGD across all Class I areas would be 

sufficient to make FDEP’s SO2 BART 

determination for Lansing Smith 

unreasonable. The Commenter estimates 

visibility impacts based on ‘‘linear and 

simple Gaussian dispersion 

assumptions,’’ but did not provide any 

further information on how it developed 

these estimates or how EPA should 

consider them. 

Comment 17: The Commenter states 

that EPA cannot approve the wet FGD 

BART analysis without further 

explanation from FDEP because Gulf 

Power provided emissions data for 

2003–2005, while it modeled the 

visibility impacts of these emissions 

based on meteorological data from 

2001–2003. 

Response 17: FDEP chose 2001–2003 

as its baseline period. It is not necessary 

to match the years of meteorology with 

the years of emissions in a BART 

analysis as long as both sets of data are 

representative. EPA guidance states that 

the ‘‘emissions estimates used in the 

models are intended to reflect steadystate operating conditions during 

periods of high capacity utilization.’’ 21

Concerning the choice of an alternate 

period for the emissions data, EPA has 

reviewed the SO2 emissions data for the 

Lansing Smith power plant in the EPA 

Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) 

database 22 for the 2000–2005 period. 

EPA found that the 2002 SO2 emissions 

from Lansing Smith were lower than the 

SO2 emissions for any other year in this 

period and are not representative of 

steady-state operating conditions during 

periods of high capacity utilization. The 

SO2 emissions from 2003–2005 appear 

to be the most representative three-year 

period in this time frame and EPA 

supports the State’s use of this more 

representative data. 

Comment 18: The Commenter states 

that EPA cannot approve FDEP’s 

rejection of wet FGD as BART without 

a more thorough review of the cost 

analysis. According to the Commenter: 

(1) The analysis is based on un-sourced 

and potentially biased data from an 

entity within Gulf Power’s parent 

company; (2) the data underlying the 

control effectiveness estimates is not 

publicly available; (3) the cost estimates 

likely do not follow the EPA Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual (‘‘EPA 

Control Cost Manual’’); 23 and (4) the 

assumptions regarding a seven percent 

interest rate and 20-year scrubber 

lifetime are inappropriate. 

Response 18: EPA reviewed the cost 

estimates provided by Gulf Power and 

found that they are consistent with 

those resulting from application of 

EPA’s Control Cost Manual. Appendix I 

of the Florida regional haze SIP 

submittal describes how members of the 

public can obtain access to the data 

underlying the cost analysis. EPA 

believes that Florida has adequately 

addressed data access and that the 

State’s cost analysis is consistent with 

the BART Guidelines. The seven 

percent interest rate used by FDEP is 

consistent with EPA’s Control Cost 

Manual and guidelines issued by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(Circular A–94). Furthermore, adjusting 

the scrubber lifetime from 20 to 30 years 

would affect the cost analysis only by 

approximately 10 to 11 percent. 

Decreasing the estimated cost of FGD by 

10 percent would not make FDEP’s 

conclusion that wet FGD is not SO2

BART for Lansing Smith unreasonable 

given the minimal incremental visibility 

improvements associated with this 

technology at this facility. 

Comment 19: The Commenter asserts 

that EPA cannot approve the PM BART 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53261 

24EPA notes that although two Commenters 

submitted comments on the state rulemaking for 

this BART determination, neither identified DSI as 

an option for FDEP to consider in its BART 

analysis. 

25 IPM Model—Revisions to Cost and 

Performance for APC Technologies, Dry Sorbent 

Injection Cost Development Methodology, Sargent & 

Lundy LLC, August 2010. http://www.epa.gov/

airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/docs/append5_4.pdf. 

26To view EPA’s calculations to support these 

figures, please refer to ‘‘Crystal River DSI Cost 

Analysis’’ in the docket for this action. 

limit of 0.1 lb/MMBtu for Lansing 

Smith, which is the existing limit in the 

facility’s title V permit, without 

considering lowering the limit to reflect 

the most stringent emissions control 

level that the facility’s electrostatic 

precipitators (ESPs) are capable of 

achieving. The Commenter claims that it 

would be an arbitrary and capricious 

action for EPA to approve this limit as 

PM BART because the existing ESPs 

achieve emissions rates of 0.014 and 

0.015 lb/MMBtu. 

Response 19: In its BART analysis, 

FDEP evaluated actual PM emissions 

from Units 1 and 2 with current controls 

(high efficiency hot- and cold-side 

ESPs), the impact of these emissions on 

visibility at St. Marks, existing permit 

conditions, and the visibility 

improvement associated with reducing 

the PM limits beyond the facility’s 

actual emissions. In assessing impacts 

due to PM emissions at St. Marks, FDEP 

reviewed historic PM emissions from 

Units 1 and 2 and established a baseline 

filterable PM10 emissions rate of 47.9 lb 

PM/hour, equal to approximately 0.025 

lb/MMBtu for Unit 1 and 0.021 lb/

MMBtu for Unit 2, derived from the 

highest stack test for the three-year 

period of 2003–2005 combined with 

maximum heat input. FDEP modeled 

visibility impairment using this baseline 

and calculated an impact at St. Marks 

due to PM emissions from Units 1 and 

2 of approximately 0.02 dv, equal to 1.3 

percent of the total baseline impact. 

FDEP also evaluated fabric filters as a 

possible BART control option, which 

would reduce PM emissions to a rate of 

0.008 lb/MMBtu, and found that 

reducing PM emissions beyond the 

baseline emissions rate would result in 

a visibility improvement of 0.00 dv at 

St. Marks. 

While the existing permit limit of 0.1 

lb/MMBtu is above actual controlled 

emissions levels and FDEP arguably 

should have tightened the limit to 

reflect the capabilities of the existing 

ESPs, EPA believes that FDEP’s decision 

not to tighten the limit was reasonable 

for several reasons. First, the impact of 

tightening Lansing Smith’s PM 

emissions limit would be minimal from 

a visibility perspective. Second, Lansing 

Smith’s current operating permit does 

not authorize the facility to increase PM 

emissions beyond the actual controlled 

levels when the facility installs DSI for 

SO2 BART. EPA notes that Lansing 

Smith must submit a comparison of 

baseline actual emissions to future 

actual emissions once a final design is 

available for the installation of DSI at 

the facility. This comparison should be 

available in early 2015. At that time, 

FDEP will need to determine whether 

the installation of DSI will cause a 

significant increase in the facility’s PM 

emissions, thereby triggering PSD 

review. Third, MATS was promulgated 

on April 24, 2013, (78 FR 24073) for 

existing sources and will further limit 

PM emissions from Units 1 and 2 to 0.03 

lb/MMBtu by 2015. For these reasons, 

EPA believes that the existing permit 

limit of 0.1 lb/MMBtu for Units 1 and 

2 at Lansing Smith is adequate for PM 

BART at this time. However, EPA 

expects FDEP to review the PM 

emissions limit in the next regional haze 

implementation period, at which time 

the PM impacts, if any, from the 

operation of DSI for SO2 BART will be 

clear. 

Comment 20: The Commenter claims 

that the modeling files have not been 

made available and that EPA cannot 

evaluate or approve the BART 

determinations for the Lansing Smith 

facility without this information. The 

Commenter requests that EPA obtain the 

modeling files, evaluate them for 

consistency with the BART Guidelines 

and Control Cost Manual, and provide 

them for public review and comment. 

Response 20: Appendix I of the 

Florida regional haze SIP submittal 

describes how members of the public 

can obtain access to the modeling files. 

It also states that the raw 

meteorological, emissions, and air 

quality modeling input and output 

datasets will in many cases surpass any 

practical file size for online storage or 

downloading. EPA has accessed the data 

in this manner and reviewed the 

appropriate files. EPA believes that 

Florida has adequately addressed data 

access and that the State’s visibility 

modeling for Lansing Smith is 

consistent with the BART Guidelines. 

The EPA Control Cost Manual is not 

relevant to visibility modeling. 

Crystal River 

Comment 21: The Commenter notes 

that under Option 1 (shutdown), the 

underlying BART analysis does not 

consider the use of DSI as an interim 

control for SO2. The Commenter 

believes that an analysis of this control 

is required before EPA can approve the 

proposed BART determination. 

Response 21: EPA has evaluated the 

cost-effectiveness of DSI under the 

shutdown option and concludes that, 

although FDEP should have evaluated 

DSI as a possible interim BART control 

option, DSI would not be costeffective.24 EPA estimates that DSI 

would result in approximately 

$46,000,000 in capital costs and 

$54,000,000 in annual operating costs at 

the Crystal River facility, not including 

expenses for any necessary upgrades to 

the ESPs due to the increased loading 

from the DSI system or the potential 

costs due to local retrofit constraints.25

Allowing time for permit approvals, 

engineering, construction, and 

installation, and assuming that DSI 

could be fully operational by the end of 

2017 under an expeditious schedule, 

DSI would be in operation for 

approximately three years before the 

units would be shut down at the end of 

2020. At an expected control efficiency 

of 50 percent, EPA estimates that the 

annual SO2 reduction would be 4,644 

tons from Unit 1 and 5,912 tons from 

Unit 2 at a cost-effectiveness of $6,897/ 

ton and $6,943/ton of SO2 removed, 

respectively.26 EPA also evaluated the 

cost-effectiveness of operating DSI for 

five years rather than three, but still 

found that the cost-effectiveness values 

would exceed $6,000/ton. Therefore, 

EPA concurs with FDEP’s SO2 BART 

determination for Crystal River because 

the cost-effectiveness of DSI is higher 

than what EPA or Florida has 

considered to be BART in other BART 

determinations selecting DSI. 

Comment 22: The Commenter does 

not believe that EPA can approve 

Option 2 of the Crystal River BART 

determination because of alleged 

inadequacies in the BART analyses that 

resulted in BART determinations for 

SO2, PM, and NOX with emissions 

limits that were less stringent than the 

Commenter considered appropriate as 

BART for this facility. 

Response 22: On May 2, 2013, FDEP 

supplemented Florida’s regional haze 

SIP with an April 30, 2013, letter from 

Duke Energy (formerly known as 

Progress Energy) notifying FDEP of the 

Company’s binding decision to pursue 

Option 1 under the Crystal River BART 

construction permit and shut down 

Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 2020. 

Pursuant to the construction permit, 

which was incorporated into Florida’s 

regional haze SIP, Duke Energy’s 

binding determination renders Option 2 

and the corresponding permit 

provisions allowing for the 

implementation of Option 2 void. 

Today’s final action approving Florida’s 

regional haze SIP makes this shutdown 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

53262 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

27Florida Admin. Code 62–296.340, ‘‘Best 

Available Retrofit Technology.’’ 

28This emissions rate reflects the maximum daily 

actual emissions from 2001–2003 for Unit 2 used 

in Florida’s CALPUFF modeling. 

29The BART modeling estimates the maximum 

eighth highest visibility impact at Chassahowitzka 

from the emissions from these units over the 

baseline period to be 1.617 dv with a NOX

contribution of approximately 0.31 dv. See Exhibit 

2 of the Florida regional haze submittal, page 416. 

Unit 1 contributes approximately two-thirds of the 

total NOX emissions from these units. See Exhibit 

2 of the Florida regional haze submittal, page 415. 

requirement federally enforceable. 

Hence, EPA regards any comments on 

Option 2 to be moot. 

Comment 23: The Commenter 

recommends that selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR) be re-evaluated as an 

interim control under Option 1 based on 

its contention that the technology can be 

installed in much less than five years, 

thus improving its cost-effectiveness by 

increasing its useful life. 

Response 23: EPA does not believe 

that SNCR would be cost-effective as an 

interim control on Units 1 and 2 given 

the remaining useful life of this facility. 

Although EPA disagrees with FDEP’s 

conclusion that SNCR is not a 

demonstrated technology for boilers of 

this size, it does concur with FDEP that 

detailed engineering and site-specific 

assessments would be necessary to 

design and install SNCR given the 

nature of the units and that these 

assessments could take substantial 

additional time to complete. Compared 

with smaller coal-fired boilers, the 

engineering design for Units 1 and 2 

would require consideration of the 

limited access to temperature regions in 

the boiler, greater variations in 

combustion temperatures, longer 

distances over which reagent must be 

delivered and mixed, and increased 

ammonia slip due to less optimal use of 

reagent. Even if FDEP had evaluated 

SNCR as an interim measure and 

determined that SNCR was technically 

feasible, this facility would likely have 

had until mid-2018 under the Florida 

BART rule 27 to begin operating a SNCR 

system, which would then have ceased 

operation by no later than 2020 when 

the facility shut down. Thus, the limited 

remaining useful life of this facility 

makes the application of SNCR as an 

interim control option not practicable 

for Units 1 and 2. 

Comment 24: The Commenter does 

not believe that EPA can approve 

Florida’s regional haze SIP until FDEP 

considers the visibility impacts of 

Crystal River’s NOX emissions on Class 

I areas other than Chassahowitzka, the 

nearest Class I area. 

Response 24: No further visibility 

analysis is required for Crystal River 

because Duke Energy must now shut 

down Units 1 and 2 by December 31, 

2020. EPA agrees that Florida should 

have considered the visibility 

improvements at all affected Class I 

areas in its BART visibility assessments 

under Option 1; however, EPA does not 

believe that doing so would have altered 

the outcome given the limited 

remaining useful life of the facility. 

Lakeland Electric C.D. McIntosh Jr. 

Comment 25: The Commenter 

believes that the visibility modeling for 

Lakeland Electric’s C.D. McIntosh Jr. 

(McIntosh) facility should have 

considered cumulative visibility 

impacts from Everglades National Park, 

Okefenokee, and Chassahowitzka. 

Response 25: As a general matter, EPA 

agrees that Florida should have 

considered the visibility improvements 

at all affected Class I areas in its BART 

visibility assessments. For the McIntosh 

BART analysis, Florida modeled 

visibility impacts at Chassahowitzka, 

the nearest Class I area to the facility, as 

well as at Everglades National Park and 

Okefenokee, the other mandatory Class 

I Federal areas within the surrounding 

300 km CALPUFF modeling domain 

used by FDEP. FDEP conducted the 

visibility modeling consistent with the 

modeling protocol that VISTAS 

developed for preparing BART analyses 

entitled Protocol for the Application of 

the CALPUFF Model for Analyses of 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART). (See appendix L of the Florida 

regional haze SIP submittal.) This 

modeling protocol was developed in a 

transparent manner involving states, 

EPA, NPS, FWS, and any other 

interested entities that wished to 

participate in the public process. The 

protocol establishes 300 km as the 

boundary around a BART-subject source 

in which to model potential visibility 

impacts at Class I areas, and consistent 

with this protocol, FDEP modeled the 

highest visibility impact from the three 

Class I areas within a 300 km radius of 

the source. 

While FDEP should have considered 

the visibility improvement at Everglades 

and Okefenokee when conducting its 

BART analyses for McIntosh, EPA does 

not believe that FDEP not doing so has 

rendered its BART determinations 

unreasonable. As discussed in more 

detail in the responses below, FDEP 

rejected several SO2 BART options 

based on excessive cost, not visibility 

improvement. Moreover, while FDEP 

did eliminate several NOX BART 

options based on low visibility 

improvement, those values were so low 

that EPA does not believe that a 

consideration of cumulative impacts 

would alter the reasonableness of 

FDEP’s conclusions, especially in light 

of the fact that the baseline visibility 

impacts for the 98th percentile most 

impacted day at Everglades and 

Okefenokee were only 31 percent and 

27 percent, respectively, of those at 

Chassahowitzka. 

Comment 26: EPA received several 

comments regarding the adequacy of the 

NOX BART analysis for Units 1 and 2 

at McIntosh. According to the 

Commenter, EPA cannot approve the 

BART determination without: (1) Fully 

evaluating SNCR as a retrofit technology 

for Unit 2; (2) considering additional 

available retrofit control technologies 

such as low NOX burners, overfire air 

systems, and flue gas recirculation for 

Unit 1; (3) setting a NOX emissions limit 

for Unit 1; (4) demonstrating why a 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

control efficiency greater than 80 

percent is not achievable; and (5) 

calculating the cost-effectiveness of SCR 

for each individual unit. The 

Commenter also states that even the 

incorrect cost-effectiveness values 

calculated for SCR fall within the range 

of acceptable values and that SCR 

should therefore have been selected as 

BART. 

Response 26: Regarding a SNCR 

evaluation for Unit 2, this unit already 

has combustion controls in place (flue 

gas recirculation), lowering its worst 

case 24-hour NOX emission rate 28 to 

approximately 0.22 lb/MMBtu, 

comparable to what can be achieved 

with SNCR for this unit. In addition, the 

technical feasibility of installing SNCR 

on these units is uncertain because an 

engineering study would need to be 

undertaken to ascertain whether the 

units operate within the temperature 

range required by SNCR. 

With regard to the Commenter’s 

remaining concerns for Units 1 and 2, 

the BART modeling for Units 1 and 2 

predicted a total visibility impact of 

0.31 dv at Chassowitzka from their 

combined NOX emissions and a 

visibility impact of approximately 0.20 

dv from the NOX emissions at Unit 1.29

Moreover, EPA reviewed the operations 

of Unit 1 and concluded that the 

modeling based on 2001 to 2003 

emissions was sufficiently conservative 

compared to present operations. Unit 1 

emitted a total of 12.3 tons of NOX from 

2009 through 2012, according to EPA’s 

CAMD database, whereas the baseline 

BART modeling assumed that Unit 1 

emitted 2,119 tons of NOX per year. 

FDEP placed greater weight on the 

lack of potential visibility improvement 

from controlling NOX at Units 1 and 2 

than the other statutory factors due to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53263 

the modeling results described above 

and concluded that no additional 

controls were required to satisfy NOX

BART and that no adjustment to the 

existing permits were warranted. 

Furthermore, because the available 

controls (low NOX burners, flue gas 

recirculation, and SNCR) for Unit 1 

would only reduce the visibility impacts 

by 25 to 50 percent, the anticipated 

improvement from these controls would 

be as low as 0.05 to 0.1 dv assuming 

2001–2003 emission levels. Under the 

same logic, adjusting the control 

efficiency of the modeled SCR system 

from 80 to 90 percent or calculating the 

cost-effectiveness individually for each 

unit would not change the fact that the 

visibility improvement associated with 

the installation of NOX controls would 

remain low. 

Regarding a NOX BART emissions 

limit for Unit 1, the RHR does require 

an emissions limit for each visibilityimpairing pollutant at each BARTsubject source. FDEP submitted a letter 

to EPA dated July 30, 2013, in which it 

committed to provide EPA with a 

regional haze SIP revision no later than 

March 19, 2015, the deadline for the 

State’s five-year regional haze periodic 

progress report, that will include a NOX

BART emissions limit for Unit 1 

reflecting best operating practices for 

good combustion. The State also 

committed to modify the title V 

operating permit for the facility by 

March 19, 2015, to include this limit. 

The limit will be effective no later than 

the effective date of EPA’s approval of 

the SIP revision. Because of the limited 

visibility impact of NOX emissions from 

Unit 1 and because the BART limit will 

reflect the existing level of control, EPA 

concludes that it is reasonable for the 

State to implement a NOX BART 

emissions limit for Unit 1 upon EPA’s 

approval of the aforementioned SIP 

revision. Under these unique 

circumstances, EPA concludes that 

FDEP’s NOX BART determination for 

the McIntosh facility was ultimately 

reasonable. The major visibilityimpairing pollutant of concern at this 

source, SO2, has been addressed, and 

the delay in establishing a NOX BART 

emissions limit for Unit 1 will have no 

appreciable impact on visibility at any 

Class I area. 

Comment 27: The Commenter alleges 

that FDEP overestimated the costs and 

underestimated the visibility benefits of 

reducing fuel oil sulfur content in its 

SO2 BART analysis for McIntosh and 

submitted an analysis evaluating the 

visibility benefits of reducing the fuel 

oil sulfur content and associated costs. 

According to the Commenter, FDEP 

should have included the visibility 

improvements at Everglades National 

Park and Okefenokee Wilderness Area 

associated with the 0.7 percent sulfur 

fuel evaluation and should not have 

used the 2001–2003 baseline period to 

estimate heat inputs and fuel costs. 

Response 27: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter. With respect to the 

information provided by the 

Commenter, EPA finds that the 

Commenter used different baselines to 

evaluate the costs and visibility benefits 

of a lower sulfur content fuel oil. 

Specifically, the Commenter based costs 

on lower 2009–2011 operating rates and 

fuel-use data, but evaluated visibility 

benefits based on a 2001–2003 baseline 

period with a much higher operating 

rate. This approach neglects to consider 

that less fuel use would result in less 

visibility impairment. Had the 

Commenter adjusted the visibility 

benefits to match 2009–2011 operating 

rates, the visibility benefits would have 

been much lower. Therefore, the 

Commenter’s $/dv estimates are 

artificially low. Consistent with the 

State’s BART modeling protocol, FDEP’s 

visibility modeling was appropriately 

based on a 2001–2003 baseline for 

estimates of both visibility impacts and 

fuel consumption, assuring that higher 

visibility impacts from the higher level 

of fuel utilization in that period were 

properly considered. FDEP then based 

total costs on the latest estimates of fuel 

costs assuming baseline year 

consumption. Finally, while FDEP 

should have considered cumulative 

visibility impacts in assessing the 0.7 

percent sulfur fuel oil option, it is 

ultimately of no consequence because 

FDEP selected this option as BART for 

both Units 1 and 2. 

Comment 28: The Commenter states 

that FDEP should not have eliminated 

DSI as SO2 BART for McIntosh because 

‘‘the space required for DSI is minimal, 

as is the capital cost.’’ 

Response 28: EPA notes that DSI 

requires an adequate PM control device 

to collect the sulfate particles generated 

by the sorbent injection system. 

Currently, there are no add-on 

particulate controls on the oil-fired 

units at McIntosh. Installation of DSI 

would therefore require installation of a 

fabric filter system or ESP to capture the 

sulfate particles generated. The expense 

of adding a new particulate control 

system in addition to DSI itself would 

have made this control option not costeffective for Units 1 and 2 at McIntosh. 

Comment 29: The Commenter 

believes that FDEP also should have 

evaluated the firing of 0.3 percent sulfur 

fuel oil, 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil, 

distillate, and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel 

(ULSD) in its SO2 BART analysis for 

McIntosh. 

Response 29: As is discussed in more 

detail in EPA’s response to Comment 

14, the BART Guidelines do not require 

states to list all permutations of 

available control levels that exist for a 

given technology. FDEP evaluated 

switching from 0.7 percent sulfur fuel 

oil to 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil in its 

BART analyses for several other 

facilities. In these other instances, FDEP 

presented the cost-effectiveness of 

switching to 0.7 percent and 0.3 percent 

sulfur fuel oils, which are the 

commonly-available grades of residual 

fuel oil. The use of 0.5 percent sulfur 

fuel oil would require a blending of 

these two fuel oils, and its costeffectiveness can be interpolated from 

the information provided. Distillate and 

ULSD would be substantially more 

expensive than 0.3 percent sulfur fuel 

oil, which FDEP had already 

determined was not cost-effective. FDEP 

did not re-perform this analysis for 

Units 1 and 2 at McIntosh because 

distillate oil and ULSD were found to 

not be cost-effective in the BART 

analyses for other facilities. EPA does 

not believe that an explicit evaluation of 

these additional fuels for McIntosh 

would have resulted in a different 

conclusion because the analysis is 

dependent on fuel cost, and fuel cost is 

approximately uniform among the 

facilities evaluated by FDEP given that 

the suppliers of fuel oil in Florida that 

service the other EGUs are the same as 

those that supply Lakeland Electric, 

including the McIntosh facility. 

FPL Manatee 

Comment 30: The Commenter 

believes that FDEP also should have 

considered 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil, 

distillate, and ULSD fuel oils in the SO2

BART analysis for FPL Manatee 

(Manatee). 

Response 30: See response to 

Comment 29. The same rationale for not 

assessing additional fuels at McIntosh 

also applies to Manatee. 

Comment 31: The Commenter alleges 

that FDEP overestimated the costs and 

underestimated the visibility benefits of 

reducing fuel oil sulfur content in 

evaluating SO2 BART options. 

According to the Commenter, FDEP 

should have included the cumulative 

visibility improvements at Everglades 

National Park and Chassahowitzka 

Wilderness Area associated with the 

fuel switching options and should have 

used a 2009–2011 baseline period to 

estimate heat inputs and fuel costs 

rather than the 2001–2003 period 

chosen by FDEP. The Commenter 

contends that 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

53264 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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

31 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, IV.D.1. 

32http://cfpub.epa.gov/RBLC/. 

is SO2 BART because FDEP 

overestimated the cost of switching to 

this fuel oil by not considering that the 

use of fuel oil is ‘‘likely to continue to 

decrease in favor of gas.’’ 

Response 31: In regards to the 

comments on cost estimates and the 

correct baseline period, see the response 

to Comment 27. In regards to the 

comment on cumulative visibility 

benefits, while EPA agrees that Florida 

should have considered the visibility 

improvements at all affected Class I 

areas in its BART visibility assessments, 

EPA does not believe that doing so 

would have altered the outcome here. 

For the Manatee BART analysis, Florida 

modeled visibility impacts at the 

Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Area 

as well as at Everglades National Park, 

the only other mandatory Class I Federal 

area within the surrounding 300 km 

CALPUFF modeling domain. For SO2

BART, FDEP evaluated the costs and 

visibility benefits associated with 

switching from 1.0 percent sulfur fuel 

oil to 0.7 percent and 0.3 percent sulfur 

fuel oil. FDEP selected 0.7 percent 

sulfur fuel oil as BART at a costeffectiveness of $5,468/ton of SO2

reduced and rejected 0.3 percent sulfur 

fuel oil at a cost-effectiveness of $6,542/ 

ton of SO2 reduced. The incremental 

cost-effectiveness of lowering the sulfur 

level in fuel oil from 0.7 percent to 0.3 

percent was $7,348/ton of SO2 reduced. 

The Commenter did not provide any 

data in support of its contention that the 

use of fuel oil is likely to continue to 

decrease in favor of gas such that a 

switch to 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil 

would be more cost effective. EPA 

agrees with FDEP’s SO2 BART 

determination and is not persuaded 

that, given the incremental costeffectiveness of more stringent controls, 

consideration of cumulative visibility 

benefits or the Commenter’s 

assumptions regarding trends in fuel oil 

usage would have resulted in a different 

BART determination for SO2. 

Comment 32: The Commenter argues 

that BART should be a fuel-specific 

determination and that EPA should not 

allow the source to blend a fuel oil with 

sulfur content higher than what is 

determined to be BART with natural 

gas. The Commenter believes that 

blending fuel oil with natural gas is not 

a legitimate offset because natural gas 

would be used anyway. 

Response 32: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s view that BART needs to 

be a fuel-specific determination. Except 

in cases where work practices are 

delineated, BART is an emissions limit, 

not a specified technology.30 Blending 

fuels to lower the emissions rate is an 

acceptable and cost-effective method to 

reduce emissions and their associated 

visibility impacts, and it is allowed by 

the EPA New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) subpart D rules for 

oil-fired boilers. The Commenter’s 

statement that ‘‘natural gas would be 

used anyway’’ is not explained or 

supported. 

Comment 33: The Commenter 

believes that FDEP should have 

evaluated additional combustion 

controls and SNCR in the NOX BART 

analysis for Manatee and cites to units 

in EPA’s CAMD database with lower 

NOX emissions rates than the rate 

selected as NOX BART. 

Response 33: The Manatee units are 

currently equipped with multiple NOX

emissions control methods including: 

Flue gas recirculation, overfire air 

systems, staged combustion, low NOX

burners, and re-burn. FDEP assessed 

SCR as a technically feasible postcombustion NOX control, but did not 

evaluate SNCR. For oil-fired units, the 

technical feasibility of SNCR is 

uncertain because SNCR depends on the 

availability of an accessible location 

within the furnace with relatively high 

temperatures where injectors could be 

installed. To determine whether such a 

location existed in these units would 

have required a detailed engineering 

analysis because oil-fired boilers 

typically operate at lower peak 

temperatures than coal-fired boilers. 

While the BART Guidelines ordinarily 

require states to make a reasoned 

determination that a widely available 

control technology, such as SNCR, is 

technically infeasible before rejecting it, 

EPA does not believe that SCR would be 

BART for NOX at Manatee. Six to 17 

percent of the 98th percentile visibility 

impact at the Chassahowitzka 

Wilderness Area from 2001–2003 was 

attributable to NOX emissions from 

Manatee. FDEP evaluated SCR operating 

at 90 percent efficiency as part of its 

BART analysis for Manatee and 

determined that this control technology 

would improve visibility by 0.47 dv at 

a cost of $3,776/ton of NOX reduced, or 

approximately $66 million/dv. The 

likely visibility improvement from 

SNCR, if it were feasible for these oilfired units, would range from 0.1 dv to 

0.2 dv (assuming a 25 to 40 percent 

reduction potentially achievable with 

the use of SNCR). EPA concludes that, 

in light of the visibility improvement 

predicted for a highly efficient SCR, that 

a more thorough evaluation of a less 

effective technology would not have 

changed the State’s BART 

determination. 

FPL Martin Power Plant 

Comment 34: The Commenter 

believes that FDEP also should have 

considered 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil, 

distillate, and ULSD fuel oils in the SO2

BART analysis for FPL Martin Power 

Plant (Martin). 

Response 34: See the response to 

Comment 29. 

Comment 35: The Commenter 

contends that FDEP inappropriately 

dismissed FGD systems from 

consideration as BART because, 

according to the Commenter, FGD 

systems are ‘‘feasible and in use on oilfired boilers’’ even though these systems 

‘‘are seldom used on oil-fired boilers 

because it is more cost-effective to 

reduce fuel sulfur content.’’ 

Response 35: According to the BART 

Guidelines, ‘‘[a]vailable retrofit control 

options are those air pollution control 

technologies with a practical potential 

for application to the emissions unit and 

the regulated pollutant under 

evaluation.’’ 31 Based on a review of 

EPA’s Reasonably Available Control 

Technology/Best Available Control 

Technology/Lowest Achievable 

Emissions Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) 

Clearinghouse,32 EPA is not aware of 

any oil-fired utility boilers currently 

equipped with a FGD system. As noted 

by the Commenter, oil-fired utility 

boilers that need to reduce SO2

emissions typically rely on lower sulfur 

fuel oil where the desulfurization is 

conducted at the refinery rather than 

after combustion in the utility boiler. 

Thus, EPA believes that the State’s 

decision not to include FGD in the 

BART analysis for this facility was 

reasonable and consistent with the 

BART Guidelines. 

Comment 36: The Commenter alleges 

that FDEP overestimated the costs and 

underestimated the visibility benefits of 

reducing fuel oil sulfur content in 

evaluating SO2 BART options. 

According to the Commenter, FDEP 

should have included the cumulative 

visibility improvements at Everglades 

National Park and Chassahowitzka 

Wilderness Area associated with the 

fuel switching options and should have 

used a 2009–2011 baseline period to 

estimate heat inputs and fuel costs 

rather than the 2001–2003 period 

chosen by FDEP. 

Response 36: In regards to the 

comments on cost estimates and the 

correct baseline period, see the response 

to Comment 27. In regards to the 

comment on cumulative visibility 

benefits, while EPA agrees that Florida 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53265 

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

should have considered the visibility 

improvements at all affected Class I 

areas in its BART visibility assessments, 

EPA does not think doing so would 

have altered the outcome here. For the 

Martin BART analysis, Florida modeled 

visibility impacts at the Chassahowitzka 

Wilderness Area as well as at Everglades 

National Park, the only other mandatory 

Class I Federal area within the 

surrounding 300 km CALPUFF 

modeling domain. For SO2 BART, FDEP 

evaluated the costs and visibility 

benefits associated with switching from 

0.7 percent sulfur fuel oil to 0.3 percent 

sulfur fuel oil. FDEP rejected 0.3 percent 

sulfur fuel oil at a cost-effectiveness of 

$7,348/ton of SO2 reduced. Similarly, 

for NOX BART, FDEP evaluated the 

costs and visibility benefits associated 

with the installation of SCR. FDEP 

rejected SCR at a cost-effectiveness of 

$5,323/ton of NOX reduced, with a 

visibility improvement at 

Chassahowitzka of just 0.15 dv. EPA 

agrees with FDEP’s SO2 and NOX BART 

determinations and is not persuaded, 

given the cost-effectiveness values 

associated with more stringent controls, 

that consideration of cumulative 

visibility benefits would have resulted 

in a different BART determination for 

SO2. 

Comment 37: The Commenter 

believes that FDEP should have 

evaluated additional combustion 

controls and SNCR in the NOX BART 

analysis and cites to units in EPA’s 

CAMD database with lower NOX

emissions rates than the rate selected as 

NOX BART. 

Response 37: See the response to 

Comment 33. The Martin units, like the 

Manatee units, are currently equipped 

with multiple NOX emissions control 

methods including flue gas 

recirculation, overfire air systems, 

staged combustion, and low NOX

burners. FDEP assessed SCR as a 

technically feasible post-combustion 

NOX control, but did not evaluate 

SNCR. For oil-fired units, the technical 

feasibility of SNCR is uncertain because 

SNCR depends on the availability of an 

accessible location within the furnace 

with relatively high temperatures where 

injectors could be installed. To 

determine whether such a location 

existed in these units would have 

required a detailed engineering analysis 

because oil-fired boilers typically 

operate at lower peak temperatures than 

coal-fired boilers. While the BART 

Guidelines ordinarily require states to 

make a reasoned determination that a 

widely available control technology, 

such as SNCR, is technically infeasible 

before rejecting it, EPA does not believe 

that SCR would be BART for NOX at 

Martin. Six to seven percent of the 98th 

percentile visibility impact at the 

Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area from 

2001–2003 was attributable to NOX

emissions from Martin. FDEP evaluated 

SCR operating at 90 percent efficiency 

as part of its BART analysis for Martin 

and determined that this control 

technology would improve visibility by 

0.15 dv at a cost of $5,323/per ton of 

NOX reduced. Therefore, the likely 

visibility improvement from SNCR, if it 

were feasible for these oil-fired units, 

would be less than 0.1 dv (assuming a 

25 to 40 percent reduction achievable 

with the use of SNCR). EPA concludes 

that, in light of the visibility 

improvement predicted for a highly 

efficient SCR, that a more thorough 

evaluation of a less effective technology 

would not have changed the State’s 

BART determination. 

Comment 38: The Commenter states 

that FDEP’s PM BART analysis should 

have considered the increase in PM 

emissions resulting from the re-injection 

of fly ash into the boiler and that FDEP 

‘‘should prohibit the reinjection of fly 

ash to provide an economical interim 

reduction in PM10 emissions.’’ 

Response 38: EPA disagrees that FDEP 

should have considered the elimination 

or restriction of fly ash reinjection in its 

PM BART analysis. EPA has no data on 

the impacts of fly ash re-injection on oilfired utility boilers and no basis to 

determine whether prohibiting fly ash 

re-injection would improve visibility 

because of the low particulate load of 

the flue gas emitted from oil-fired 

boilers. Although restricting fly ash reinjection is not an emissions control 

technology in the conventional sense, 

EPA believes that the BART Guidelines’ 

instructions on technical feasibility are 

instructive. Under the BART 

Guidelines, a control technology is 

technically feasible if it is ‘‘available’’ 

(i.e., if a source owner may obtain it 

through commercial channels or it is 

otherwise available within the common 

sense meaning of the term) and 

‘‘applicable’’ (i.e., it can reasonably be 

installed and operated on the source at 

issue).33 An applicability evaluation 

generally involves consideration of gas 

stream characteristics, the capabilities of 

the technology, and unresolvable 

technical difficulties. Operators of 

certain coal-fired boilers re-inject fly ash 

for the purpose of energy conservation, 

not emissions control. Coal-fired boilers 

generate substantially greater amounts 

of ash and have particulate control 

technologies with different 

characteristics than oil-fired boilers. 

Although fly ash re-injection has been 

prohibited for certain coal-fired boilers, 

there is no evidence that this 

methodology has been used for oil-fired 

boilers and no evidence that the gas 

streams are similar enough such that the 

process would be applicable as a PM 

emissions control technique for oil-fired 

boilers. For these reasons, EPA believes 

that the Commenter’s extrapolation of a 

control technique from coal-fired to oilfired boilers is not appropriate in this 

instance. 

FPL Turkey Point Power Plant 

Comment 39: The Commenter 

believes that FDEP also should have 

considered 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil, 

distillate, and ULSD fuel oils in the SO2

BART analysis and 0.3 percent sulfur 

fuel oil, 0.5 percent sulfur fuel oil, 

distillate, and ULSD fuel oils in the PM 

BART analysis for FPL Turkey Point 

Power Plant (Turkey Point). 

Response 39: Regarding SO2 BART, 

see the response to Comment 29. With 

regard to PM BART, Unit 2 is shutting 

down and Unit 1 has a PM emissions 

limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu and is limited 

under BART to operating at no more 

than 25 percent of capacity on fuel oil 

with the remainder of operations on 

natural gas. This limit will result in an 

emissions reduction of over 80 percent 

from the baseline emissions from Units 

1 and 2 combined. EPA believes that, in 

light of these conditions and because 

the baseline PM contribution from this 

facility is approximately 0.1 dv, any 

additional PM measures would result in 

negligible visibility improvement. 

Comment 40: The Commenter alleges 

that FDEP overestimated the costs and 

underestimated the visibility benefits of 

reducing fuel oil sulfur content in 

evaluating SO2 BART options. 

According to the Commenter, FDEP 

should have used a 2009–2011 baseline 

period to estimate heat inputs and fuel 

costs rather than the 2001–2003 period 

chosen by FDEP. The Commenter also 

believes that it is inconsistent for FDEP 

to conclude that 0.7 percent sulfur fuel 

oil is feasible at $19,197/ton but that 0.3 

percent sulfur fuel oil is not feasible at 

$16,044/ton and to conclude that its SO2

BART determination will produce a 

significant visibility improvement of 0.6 

dv while ‘‘dismiss[ing] 2.5 deciview and 

1.5 deciview incremental improvements 

as ‘extremely small.’ ’’ 

Response 40: In regards to the 

comments on cost estimates and the 

correct baseline period, see the response 

to Comment 27. Regarding the alleged 

inconsistency in cost-effectiveness, 

FDEP did not rely on this factor for its 

SO2 BART determination for Turkey 

Point. As part of an alternative PM 

emissions reduction strategy, FDEP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

53266 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

approved the use of 0.7 percent low 

sulfur fuel oil, a reduction in the PM 

emissions limit to 0.07 lb/MMBtu, and 

a limitation on the use of fuel oil 

equivalent to a capacity factor of 25 

percent. For SO2 BART, FDEP evaluated 

wet and dry FGD, 0.7 percent sulfur fuel 

oil, and 0.3 percent sulfur fuel oil. 

Despite the high cost-effectiveness of 0.7 

percent sulfur fuel oil, FDEP determined 

that it was SO2 BART due to the fact 

that the fuel also satisfied the PM BART 

requirement. 

Comment 41: The Commenter 

believes that FDEP should have 

evaluated additional combustion 

controls and SNCR in the NOX BART 

analysis for Turkey Point and cites to 

units in the CAMD database with lower 

NOX emissions rates than the rate 

selected as NOX BART. 

Response 41: No further analysis was 

necessary for Turkey Point Unit 2 

because there is a federally enforceable 

requirement to shut down the unit as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than December 31, 2013. Unit 1 

currently employs low NOX burners that 

reduce NOX formation in the 

combustion zone. For NOX BART, FDEP 

evaluated SNCR and SCR as potential 

post-combustion controls. Baseline 

visibility modeling for Turkey Point 

showed that nitrates contributed less 

than three percent of the visibility 

impairment associated with the 

emissions from both Units 1 and 2 at 

this facility. In light of these minimal 

visibility impacts, FDEP determined 

that additional NOX reductions from 

Unit 1 were not required, and 

maintained the existing NOX emissions 

limit of 0.40 lb/MMBtu when firing 

natural gas and 0.53 lb/MMBtu when 

firing fuel oil, with continuous 

emissions monitoring and a 30-day 

rolling average based on a state rule, 62– 

296.570 F.A.C., for NOX reasonably 

available control technology. EPA 

concludes that FDEP’s conclusions were 

reasonable. 

Comment 42: The Commenter states 

that FDEP’s PM BART analysis should 

have considered the increase in PM 

emissions resulting from the re-injection 

of fly ash into the boiler and that FDEP 

should have included the elimination of 

fly ash re-injection in its PM BART 

analysis. 

Response 42: See the response to 

Comment 38. 

JEA Northside 

Comment 43: The Commenter alleges 

that JEA Northside had the lowest $/ton 

fuel switching option rejected by FDEP 

and that FDEP did not explain why it 

rejected this option or why it did not 

evaluate a more comprehensive switch 

to lower sulfur fuels. The Commenter 

contends that FDEP should explain why 

a switch from 1.0 percent to 0.7 percent 

sulfur fuel oil is not cost-effective at JEA 

Northside when it is cost-effective at 

Manatee. 

Response 43: FDEP’s costeffectiveness estimate for converting 

from 1.8 to 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil 

was $7,184/ton of SO2 reduced. FDEP 

also estimated that the conversion 

would cost $31.1 million/dv. EPA 

concurs that these high costeffectiveness values provide sufficient 

justification for FDEP’s decision to 

reject 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil as SO2

BART for this facility. In its BART 

analyses for other oil-fired units, FDEP 

presented the cost-effectiveness of 

switching to 0.7 percent and 0.3 percent 

sulfur fuel oils, which are the 

commonly available grades of residual 

fuel oil. FDEP did not extend the 

analysis to JEA Northside because it was 

found not to be cost-effective in the 

BART analyses for other facilities. EPA 

does not believe that an explicit 

evaluation of these additional fuels for 

JEA Northside would have resulted in a 

different conclusion because the 

analysis is dependent on fuel cost, a 

cost that is approximately uniform 

among the facilities evaluated by FDEP 

given that the suppliers of fuel oil in 

Florida that service the other facilities 

are the same as those that supply JEA 

Northside. 

Comment 44: The Commenter states 

that FDEP did not justify the use of an 

80 percent control efficiency 

assumption for SCR and that any 

additional energy costs associated with 

the control should have been included 

in the cost analysis and not ‘‘doublecounted.’’ The Commenter also states 

that the ammonia issues identified by 

FDEP are common to all SCR systems 

and can be addressed by good operating 

procedures. 

Response 44: FDEP included an 

evaluation of the energy and non-air 

quality impacts associated with SCR for 

completeness because these impacts are, 

collectively, one of the five statutory 

factors to be considered in a BART 

determination. The improvement in 

visibility at Okefenokee associated with 

the installation of an SCR operating at 

80 percent efficiency and Unit 3 

operating at a maximum permitted 

capacity of 28 percent was estimated to 

be 0.26 dv. A SCR operating at 90 

percent efficiency would improve this 

estimate by roughly 0.03 dv. EPA 

believes that the limited visibility 

improvement that would result from 

adjusting the control efficiency of SCR 

to 90 percent would not have changed 

FDEP’s conclusion that SCR is not 

warranted as BART at JEA Northside. 

Visibility Metrics 

Comment 45: The Commenter alleges 

that FDEP was inconsistent in its 

approach to evaluating dollars per dv 

values, citing the $11.3 million (M)/dv 

value associated with SO2 BART for 

McIntosh and the $17.7M/dv value 

associated with SNCR at Crystal River (a 

control not selected as NOX BART at the 

facility). The Commenter also states that 

FDEP’s conclusions regarding $/dv 

values are not consistent with those 

across the country. The Commenter 

further states that FDEP does not 

explain why it determined that 

upgrading to FGD at McIntosh and 

adding FGD at Lansing Smith are not 

reasonable when the cost-effectiveness 

values associated with those controls 

are lower than the $6,542/ton costeffectiveness value associated with SO2

BART at Manatee. 

Response 45: FDEP evaluated BART 

on a case-by-case basis using facilityspecific conditions. Thus, it is to be 

expected that the resulting BART 

determinations may appear to be 

inconsistent when compared using a 

single metric. For example, at Manatee, 

FDEP determined that equivalent 

visibility improvements to those that 

can be achieved by switching to 0.7 

percent sulfur fuel oil could be achieved 

by removing the current prohibition on 

blending and co-firing 1.0 percent sulfur 

fuel oil with natural gas and by lowering 

the allowable emissions limit to 0.8 lb/ 

MMBtu (12-month rolling average). The 

estimate of $6,542/ton for SO2 controls 

is based on using lower sulfur fuel oil 

only for compliance, and the blending 

and co-firing option is expected to be 

less expensive in practice. By 

comparison, at Lansing Smith, the 

limited incremental visibility 

improvement (0.07–0.09 dv) from 

installing a FGD was weighed heavily in 

FDEP’s BART determination even 

though FDEP concluded the costeffectiveness values would have been 

reasonable had there been greater 

visibility improvement. 

Comment 46: The Commenter is 

concerned that the proposed sourcespecific BART and reasonable progress 

emissions limits for the Florida EGUs 

subject to CAIR would allow emissions 

to increase compared to 2011 actual 

emissions. 

Response 46: EPA does not consider 

the situation presented by the 

Commenter to be a realistic future 

scenario. The Commenter assumes that 

the present use of natural gas at oil/gas 

units will be replaced with the use of 

residual fuel oil at the levels used in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53267 

34 40 CFR part 51, appendix W. 

2001–2003. The Commenter’s concern 

that emissions may increase are based 

on the assumption that three oil-fired 

Florida EGUs (Martin, Manatee, and 

Turkey Point) could revert to firing 

residual oil rather than the current use 

of natural gas. EPA does not consider 

reversion to oil-firing at these units to be 

a plausible scenario for the first 

implementation period. FDEP relied on 

the VISTAS IPM projections to project 

2018 emissions that consider, among 

other factors, the expected price of oil 

and gas in the projection year to 

estimate facility utilization. As noted in 

the Florida regional haze SIP narrative, 

these projections are conservative 

because several of the units have either 

shut down or repowered to gas entirely, 

making the scenario of reverting to 

firing residual oil even more unlikely 

and resulting in even lower emissions 

levels in 2011 than predicted for 2018. 

Use of Interpolative Methods 

Comment 47: The Commenter states 

that EPA cannot approve the BART 

determinations for Crystal River, 

McIntosh, and JEA Northside because 

FDEP relied on ‘‘rough calculations 

‘instead of modeling’ to determine 

visibility impacts under step 5 of the 

BART analysis.’’ 

Response 47: EPA has reviewed the 

visibility impact calculation procedures 

for the BART determinations identified 

by the Commenter. While the 

calculations were not performed in 

accordance with the BART Guidelines, 

EPA agrees with FDEP that they are 

acceptable in this instance. The 

methodology used for these facilities to 

estimate visibility impacts relied on a 

simplifying assumption that the 

visibility impacts would be reduced in 

direct proportion to the reduction in 

emissions of individual visibilityimpairing pollutants. Based on the 

results of other BART determinations 

where emissions reductions have been 

modeled with CALPUFF, the direct 

relationship assumption would likely 

overestimate reductions in visibility 

impacts as opposed to understating 

them. EPA acknowledges that unlike a 

Gaussian plume model, such as 

AERMOD, there is not a direct linear 

relationship between emissions and 

calculated visibility impacts when using 

the CALPUFF modeling system. 

However, CALPUFF’s calculation of 

visibility impacts has been termed 

‘‘quasi-linear’’ in EPA’s Guideline on 

Air Quality Models.34 Therefore, an 

assumption of a linear response to 

changes in emissions is a reasonable 

estimation and the simplified 

methodology used for these BART 

determinations likely provides 

conservative overestimates of visibility 

impact reductions. 

Comment 48: The Commenter states 

that it would be unlawful and arbitrary 

for EPA to fully approve Florida’s 

regional haze SIP because it 

‘‘improperly relies on the illegal [CAIR] 

for inventories and projections from 

upwind states, which in turn form the 

basis for Florida’s [RPGs] and its entire 

reasonable progress strategy.’’ 

According to the Commenter, the State’s 

RPGs also include assumptions based 

on Florida’s SO2 emissions under CAIR 

and there is no guarantee that CAIR’s 

eventual replacement rule will cover 

SO2 emissions and achieve the 

emissions reductions predicted under 

CAIR. The Commenter also contends 

that it is not appropriate for EPA to wait 

until the five-year progress report to 

update these RPGs based on updated 

information; that states which have 

failed to update their SIPs to remove 

reliance on CAIR do not have a 

‘‘reliance interest’’ in CAIR; and that 

Florida must revise its Q/d reasonable 

progress exemption threshold because it 

was selected based on Florida’s 

projected progress toward natural 

visibility conditions that relied on 

CAIR. The Commenter believes that it is 

factually and legally incorrect for EPA 

to state that the emissions reductions 

associated with CAIR will be 

sufficiently permanent and enforceable 

for the necessary time period when 

‘‘CAIR has been struck down’’ and EPA 

has ‘‘disapproved reliance on CAIR for 

regional haze purposes.’’ 

Response 48: With regard to CAIR, see 

the response to Comment 1. With regard 

to Q/d, see the response to Comment 6. 

Regarding the regional haze SIP 

disapproval actions cited by the 

Commenter, EPA took all of these 

actions before the D.C. Circuit ruling in 

EME Homer City. Since that decision, 

EPA has stated its belief that it would 

be appropriate to rescind the limited 

disapproval actions for those regional 

haze SIPs that relied on CAIR should 

EME Homer City be upheld. See, e.g., 78 

FR 11805, 11807 (Feb. 20, 2013). 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is finalizing a full approval of all 

remaining portions of Florida’s regional 

haze SIP. EPA also finds that the entire 

Florida regional haze SIP now meets the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

as set forth in sections 169A and 169B 

of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300– 

51.308. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian 

country, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

53268 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 28, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 14, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart K—Florida 

■ 2. Section 52.520 is amended: 

■ a. In paragraph (c) by adding one new 

entry in numerical order under Chapter 

62–296 Stationary Sources—Emissions 

Standards for ‘‘62–296.340’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (e) by adding five new 

entries for ‘‘Initial Regional Haze Plan,’’ 

‘‘Regional Haze Plan Amendment 1,’’ 

‘‘Regional Haze Plan Amendment 2,’’ 

‘‘Progress Energy Permit (Air Permit No. 

0170004–038–AC),’’ and ‘‘Update to 

October 15, 2013, Progress Energy 

Permit (Air Permit No. 0170004–038– 

AC)’’ at the end of the table to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA REGULATIONS

State citation 

(Section) Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA 

approval 

date 

Explanation 

*******

Chapter 62–296 Stationary Sources—Emissions Standards 

*******

62–296.340 ...................................... Best Available Retrofit Technology 1/31/07 8/29/13 [Insert citations of publication].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA-approval 

date Federal Register notice Explanation 

*******

Initial Regional Haze Plan ............... 3/19/10 8/29/13 [Insert citation of publication] 

Regional Haze Plan Amendment 1 8/31/10 8/29/13 [Insert citation of publication] 

Regional Haze Plan Amendment 2 9/17/12 8/29/13 [Insert citation of publication] ......... Remaining Portion of Regional 

Haze Plan Amendment not approved on November 29, 2012. 

Progress Energy Permit (Air Permit 

No. 0170004–038–AC).

10/15/12 8/29/13 [Insert citation of publication] 

Update to October 15, 2013, 

Progress Energy Permit (Air Permit No. 0170004–038–AC).

5/2/13 8/29/13 [Insert citation of publication] 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53269 

[FR Doc. 2013–21028 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0633; FRL–9900–32- 

Region6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arkansas; 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving portions of 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittals from the State of Arkansas to 

address Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

that prohibit air emissions which will 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in any other state for the 

1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). EPA has 

determined that the existing SIP for 

Arkansas contains adequate provisions 

to prohibit air emissions from 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 1997 annual and 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS (1997 PM2.5

NAAQS) and the 2006 revised 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS) in 

any other state as required by section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Act. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 30, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0633. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of 

Information Act Review Room between 

the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Young, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–6645; email address 

young.carl@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The background for today’s action is 

discussed in detail in our May 7, 2013 

proposal (78 FR 26568). In that notice, 

we proposed to approve portions of SIP 

submittals for the State of Arkansas 

submitted on December 17, 2007, and 

September 16, 2009, and the technical 

supplement submitted on March 20, 

2013, that determined the existing SIP 

for Arkansas contains adequate 

provisions to prohibit air emissions 

from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state as required 

by CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the Act. We did not receive any 

comments regarding our proposal. 

II. Final Action 

We are approving portions of SIP 

submittals for the State of Arkansas 

submitted on December 17, 2007, and 

September 16, 2009, and the technical 

supplement submitted on March 20, 

2013, to address interstate transport for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We 

approve the portions of the SIP 

submittals and technical supplement 

determining the existing SIP for 

Arkansas contains adequate provisions 

to prohibit air emissions from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state as required 

by CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the Act. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES