Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-30751

Proposed Rule2024-30751

Air Plan Approval; Florida; Second Planning Period Regional Haze Plan

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

December 27, 2024

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on October 8, 2021, and supplemented on June 14, 2024, and October 28, 2024, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second planning period. Florida's SIP submissions for the second planning period address the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term strategies (LTSs) for making reasonable progress toward the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. These SIP submissions also address other applicable requirements for the second planning period of the regional haze program. EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Act.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 248 (Friday, December 27, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 105506-105534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30751]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0930; FRL-10403-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Florida; Second Planning Period Regional Haze
Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
on October 8, 2021, and supplemented on June 14, 2024, and October 28,
2024, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's
second planning period. Florida's SIP submissions for the second
planning period address the requirement that states must periodically
revise their long-term strategies (LTSs) for making reasonable progress
toward the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any
existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional
haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. These SIP submissions also
address other applicable requirements for the second planning period of
the regional haze program. EPA is taking this action pursuant to
sections 110 and 169A of the Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 27, 2025.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2021-0930, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pearlene Williams-Miles, Multi-Air
Pollutant Coordination Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms.
Williams-Miles can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9144 or
electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7c0dedbdbded6dac4dadedbd2c499c7d2d6c5dbd2d9d2f7d2c7d699d0d8c1">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

[[Page 105507]]

III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Planning
Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)
C. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) for Regional Haze
D. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan
Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward
the RPGs
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager (FLM)
Coordination
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Florida's Regional Haze Submissions for the
Second Planning Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the URP
C. LTS for Regional Haze
D. RPGs
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Regional Haze Plan Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward
the RPGs
G. Requirements for State and FLM Coordination
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

On October 8, 2021, and supplemented on June 14, 2024, and October
28, 2024, FDEP submitted revisions to its SIP to address regional haze
for the second planning period. FDEP made these SIP submissions to
satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to
CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.\1\ EPA is proposing to
find that the Florida regional haze SIP submissions for the second
planning period (``Haze Plan'') meet the applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements, and thus, EPA also proposes to approve
Florida's submissions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The 2021 Plan includes a request to remove source-specific
and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) limits and conditions
from the Florida SIP, which Florida provided to address BART and
source-specific reasonable progress requirements during the first
planning period. On June 14, 2024, FDEP withdrew this request. Thus,
EPA will not act on this portion of Florida's 2021 Plan. FDEP's
request to withdraw the portion of the 2021 plan that requests the
removal of the first period planning period source specific and BART
limits may be found the Materials to be Removed section of the 2024
Supplement.
\2\ ``Haze Plan'' collectively refers to the October 8, 2021,
June 14, 2024, and October 28, 2024, SIP submissions. The phrase
``2021 Plan'' refers to the October 8, 2021, SIP submission; ``2024
Supplement'' refers to the June 14, 2024, SIP submission which
supplements the 2021 Plan; and ``Second 2024 Supplement'' refers to
the October 28, 2024, SIP submission which also supplements the 2021
Plan. Each submission contains an administrative file which provides
the specific permit conditions FDEP requests for incorporation into
the Florida SIP under the Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans

A. Regional Haze Background

In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\3\ See CAA
169A. 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 Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' See CAA 169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs EPA to
promulgate regulations to assure reasonable progress toward meeting
this national goal. See CAA 169A(a)(4). On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in mandatory
Class I Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as ``Class I areas'')
that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group
of sources. (45 FR 80084, December 2, 1980) These regulations, codified
at 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307, represented the first phase of EPA's
efforts to address visibility impairment. In 1990, Congress added
section 169B to the CAA to further address visibility impairment,
specifically, impairment from regional haze. See CAA 169B. EPA
promulgated the RHR, codified at 40 CFR 51.308,\4\ on July 1, 1999. See
64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999. These regional haze regulations are a
central component of EPA's comprehensive visibility protection program
for Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Areas statutorily designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all
international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See
CAA 162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of areas
to which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply
is in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
\4\ In addition to the generally applicable regional haze
provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, EPA also promulgated regulations
specific to addressing regional haze visibility impairment in Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The latter
regulations are applicable only for specific jurisdictions' regional
haze plans submitted no later than December 17, 2007, and thus are
not relevant here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse
particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur
dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), and, in
some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia
(NH<INF>3</INF>)). Precursor pollutants react in the atmosphere to form
fine particulate matter (particles less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers ([micro]m) in diameter, PM<INF>2.5</INF>), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible
distance.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric defined and used by the RHR. Under many
circumstances, a change in one deciview will be perceived by the
human eye to be the same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview
is unitless. It is proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric
extinction of light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to
its being scattered and absorbed as it passes through the
atmosphere. Atmospheric light extinction (bext) is a metric used for
expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters
(Mm-1). EPA's ``Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2019
Guidance'') offers the flexibility for the use of light extinction
in certain cases. Light extinction can be simpler to use in
calculations than deciviews since it is not a logarithmic function.
See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at 16, 19, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period</a>, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019). The formula for
the deciview is 10 ln (bext)/10 Mm-1). See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both states in
which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment. See CAA 169A(b)(2); \6\ see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional
haze SIP revisions); 64 FR 35768, July 1, 1999. Under the CAA, each SIP
submission must contain ``a long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy
for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal,'' CAA
169A(b)(2)(B); the initial round of SIP submissions also had to address
the statutory requirement that certain older, larger sources of
visibility impairing pollutants install and operate BART. CAA
169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR 51.308(d), (e). States' first regional haze SIPs
were due by December 17, 2007, 40

[[Page 105508]]

CFR 51.308(b), with subsequent SIP submissions containing updated LTS
originally due July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter. See 64 FR
35768, July 1, 1999. EPA established in the 1999 RHR that all states
either have Class I areas within their borders or ``contain sources
whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional
haze in a Class I area''; therefore, all states must submit regional
haze SIPs.\7\ Id. at 35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for states to
submit plans addressing out-of-state Class I areas by providing that
states must address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class
I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
\7\ In addition to each of the 50 states, EPA also concluded
that the Virgin Islands and District of Columbia must also submit
regional haze SIPs because they either contain a Class I area or
contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.300(b),
(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much of the focus in the first planning period of the regional haze
program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on satisfying states'
BART obligations. First planning period SIPs were additionally required
to contain LTSs for making reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal, of which BART is one component. The core required
elements for the first planning period SIPs (other than BART) are laid
out in 40 CFR 51.308(d). Those provisions require that states
containing Class I areas establish RPGs that are measured in deciviews
and reflect the anticipated visibility conditions at the end of the
period including from implementation of states' LTSs. The first
planning period RPGs were required to provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the
implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same period. In establishing the RPGs for
any Class I area in a state, the state was required to consider four
statutory factors (also referenced herein as ``the four factors''): the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining
useful life of any potentially affected sources. See CAA 169A(g)(1); 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1).
States were also required to calculate baseline (using the five-
year period of 2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions (i.e.,
visibility conditions without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for
each Class I area, and to calculate the linear rate of progress needed
to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of
baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending with natural
conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is known as the uniform
rate of progress (URP) and is used as a tracking metric to help states
assess the amount of progress they are making toward the national
visibility goal over time in each Class I area.\8\ See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2). The 1999 RHR also provided that states'
LTSs must include the ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance,
schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable
progress goals.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). In establishing their LTSs,
states are required to consult with other states that also contribute
to visibility impairment in a given Class I area and include all
measures necessary to obtain their shares of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii). Section
51.308(d) also contains seven additional factors states must consider
in formulating their LTSs, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as
provisions governing monitoring and other implementation plan
requirements. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Finally, the 1999 RHR required
states to submit periodic progress reports--SIP revisions due every
five years that contain information on states' implementation of their
regional haze plans and an assessment of whether anything additional is
needed to make reasonable progress, see 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h)--and to
consult with the FLMs \9\ responsible for each Class I area according
to the requirements in CAA 169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ EPA established the URP framework in the 1999 RHR to provide
``an equitable analytical approach'' to assess the rate of
visibility improvement at Class I areas across the country. The
start point for the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was
calculated based on the amount of visibility improvement that was
anticipated to result from implementation of existing CAA programs
over the period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005. Assuming
this rate of progress would continue into the future, EPA determined
that natural visibility conditions would be reached in 60 years, or
2064 (60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004). However,
EPA did not establish 2064 as the year by which the national goal
must be reached. See 64 FR 35731-32. That is, the URP and the 2064
date are not enforceable targets but are rather tools that ``allow
for analytical comparisons between the rate of progress that would
be achieved by the state's chosen set of control measures and the
URP.'' See 82 FR 3078, 3084, January 10, 2017.
\9\ EPA's regulations define ``Federal Land Manager'' as ``the
Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal Class I
area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to Roosevelt-
Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the Roosevelt-
Campobello International Park Commission.'' See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On January 10, 2017, EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR (82 FR
3078) that apply for the second and subsequent planning periods. The
2017 rulemaking made several changes to the requirements for regional
haze SIPs to clarify states' obligations and streamline certain
regional haze requirements. The revisions to the regional haze program
for the second and subsequent planning periods focused on the
requirement that states' SIPs contain LTSs for making reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal. The reasonable progress
requirements as revised in the 2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the
2017 RHR Revisions) are codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among other
changes, the 2017 RHR Revisions adjusted the deadline for states to
submit their second planning period SIPs from July 31, 2018, to July
31, 2021, clarified the order of analysis and the relationship between
RPGs and the LTSs, and focused on making visibility improvements on the
days with the most anthropogenic visibility impairment, as opposed to
the days with the most visibility impairment overall. EPA also revised
requirements of the visibility protection program related to periodic
progress reports and FLM consultation. The specific requirements
applicable to second planning period regional haze SIP submissions are
addressed in detail below.
EPA provided guidance to the states for their second planning
period SIP submissions in the preamble to the 2017 RHR Revisions as
well as in subsequent stand-alone guidance documents. In August 2019,
EPA issued its 2019 Guidance.\10\ On July 8, 2021, EPA issued a
memorandum containing ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2021
Clarifications Memo'').\11\ Additionally, EPA further clarified the
recommended procedures for processing ambient visibility data and
optionally adjusting the URP to account for international anthropogenic
and prescribed fire impacts in two technical guidance documents: the
December 2018 ``Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program'' (``2018
Visibility Tracking Guidance''),\12\ and the June 2020 ``Recommendation
for the Use of Patched and Substituted Data and Clarification of Data
Completeness for Tracking Visibility Progress for the

[[Page 105509]]

Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program'' and
associated Technical Addendum (``2020 Data Completeness Memo'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See footnote 4.
\11\ ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period.'' EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
(July 8, 2021). <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf</a>.
\12\ ``Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program.''
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional</a>. EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
(December 20, 2018).
\13\ ``Recommendation for the Use of Patched and Substituted
Data and Clarification of Data Completeness for Tracking Visibility
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze
Program.'' <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program</a>.
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park (June 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, EPA intends the
second planning period of the regional haze program to secure
meaningful reductions in visibility impairing pollutants that build on
the significant progress states have achieved to date. The Agency also
recognizes that analyses regarding reasonable progress are state-
specific and that, based on states' and sources' individual
circumstances, what constitutes reasonable reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants will vary from state to state. While there exist
many opportunities for states to leverage both ongoing and upcoming
emission reductions under other CAA programs, the Agency expects states
to undertake rigorous reasonable progress analyses that identify
further opportunities to advance the national visibility goal
consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements. See,
generally, 2021 Clarifications Memo. This is consistent with Congress's
determination that a visibility protection program is needed in
addition to the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs, as further
emission reductions may be necessary to adequately protect visibility
in Class I areas throughout the country.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95-294 at 205 (``In determining how
to best remedy the growing visibility problem in these areas of
great scenic importance, the committee realizes that as a matter of
equity, the national ambient air quality standards cannot be revised
to adequately protect visibility in all areas of the country.'')
(``the mandatory class I increments of [the PSD program] do not
adequately protect visibility in class I areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

Because the air pollutants affecting visibility in Class I areas
can be transported over long distances, successful implementation of
the regional haze program requires long-term, regional coordination
among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that have responsibility for
Class I areas and the emissions that impact visibility in those areas.
In order to address regional haze, states need to develop strategies in
coordination with one another, considering the effect of emissions from
one jurisdiction on the air quality in another. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs),\15\ which include representation from state and
tribal governments, EPA, and FLMs, were developed in the lead-up to the
first planning period to address regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical
information to better understand how emissions from state and tribal
land impact Class I areas across the country, pursue the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions of PM and other pollutants
leading to regional haze, and help states meet the consultation
requirements of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ``multi-
jurisdictional organizations,'' or MJOs. For the purposes of this
document, the terms RPO and MJO are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Southeastern States Air Resource Managers, Inc. (SESARM), one
of the five RPOs described above, is a collaborative effort of state
and local agencies and tribal governments established to initiate and
coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze,
visibility, and other air quality issues in the Southeast. SESARM's
coalition to conduct regional haze work is referred to as Visibility
Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS).\16\
Member states, local air agencies, and tribal governments of VISTAS are
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia; the local air
agencies, represented by the President of Metro 4 or designee; \17\ and
the Tribes located within the VISTAS region, represented by the Eastern
Band of the Cherokee Indians. The Federal partner members of VISTAS are
EPA, U.S. National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ The VISTAS technical work under SESARM is described at this
website: <a href="https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-program">https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-program</a>.
\17\ Metro 4 is a Tennessee corporation which represents the
local air pollution control agencies in EPA's Region 4 in the
Southeast. See <a href="https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/metro-4-about-us">https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/metro-4-about-us</a>.
\18\ The NPS, FWS, and USFS are collectively referred to as the
``Federal Land Managers'' or ``FLMs'' throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Planning
Period

Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second
planning period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021. Each
state's SIP must contain a LTS for making reasonable progress toward
meeting the national goal of remedying any existing and preventing any
future anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I areas. See CAA
169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f) lays out the process by
which states determine what constitutes their LTSs, with the order of
the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) through (3) generally mirroring
the order of the steps in the reasonable progress analysis \19\ and
(f)(4) through (6) containing additional related requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that the Agency was
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in Sec. 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' See 82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Broadly speaking, a state first must identify the Class I areas
within the state and determine the Class I areas outside the state in
which visibility may be affected by emissions from the state. These are
the Class I areas that must be addressed in the state's LTS. See 40 CFR
51.308(f) introductory text, (f)(2). For each Class I area within its
borders, a state must then calculate the baseline, current, and natural
visibility conditions for that area, as well as the visibility
improvement made to date and the URP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each
state having a Class I area and/or emissions that may affect visibility
in a Class I area must then develop a LTS that includes the enforceable
emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas. A reasonable
progress determination is based on applying the four factors in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility impairing pollutants that
the state has selected to assess for controls for the second planning
period.
Additionally, as further explained below, the RHR at 40 CFR
51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five ``additional factors'' \20\
that states must consider in developing their long-term strategies. See
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state evaluates potential emission reduction
measures for those selected sources and determines which are necessary
to make reasonable progress. Those measures are then incorporated into
the state's LTS. After a state has developed its LTS, it then
establishes RPGs for each Class I area within its borders by modeling
the visibility impacts of all reasonable progress

[[Page 105510]]

controls at the end of the second planning period, i.e., in 2028, as
well as the impacts of other requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include
reasonable progress controls not only for sources in the state in which
the Class I area is located, but also for sources in other states that
contribute to visibility impairment in that area. The RPGs are then
compared to the baseline visibility conditions and the URP to ensure
that progress is being made toward the statutory goal of preventing any
future and remedying any existing anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f)
related to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP revisions for the
second planning period must address the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic reports describing
progress toward the RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements
for FLM consultation that apply to all visibility protection SIPs and
SIP revisions. See 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A state must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP
revisions to EPA according to the requirements applicable to all SIP
revisions under the CAA and EPA's regulations. See CAA 169A(b)(2); CAA
110(a). Upon EPA approval, a SIP is enforceable by the Agency and the
public under the CAA. If EPA finds that a state fails to make a
required SIP revision, or if EPA finds that a state's SIP is incomplete
or if disapproves the SIP, the Agency must promulgate a Federal
implementation plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable requirements.
See CAA 110(c)(1).

A. Identification of Class I Areas

The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a state to
determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders,
``may be affected'' by emissions from within the state. In the 1999
RHR, EPA determined that all states contribute to visibility impairment
in at least one Class I area, 64 FR 35720-22, and explained that the
statute and regulations lay out an ``extremely low triggering
threshold'' for determining ``whether States should be required to
engage in air quality planning and analysis as a prerequisite to
determining the need for control of emissions from sources within their
State.'' Id. at 35721.
A state must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants from all sources within the state. While the RHR does not
require this evaluation to be conducted in any particular manner, EPA's
2019 Guidance provides recommendations for how such an assessment might
be accomplished, including by, where appropriate, using the
determinations previously made for the first planning period. See 2019
Guidance at 8-9. In addition, the determination of which Class I areas
may be affected by a state's emissions is subject to the requirement in
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ``document the technical basis, including
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information, on
which the State is relying to determine the emission reduction measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress in each mandatory Class
I Federal area it affects.''

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)

As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second
planning period is providing for reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The
requirements of this subsection apply only to states having Class I
areas within their borders; the required calculations must be made for
each such Class I area. EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance \21\
provides recommendations to assist states in satisfying their
obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1); specifically, in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP to account for the
impacts of international anthropogenic emissions and prescribed fires.
See 82 FR 3103-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance references and relies
on parts of the 2003 Tracking Guidance: ``Guidance for Tracking
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule'' which can be found at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/tracking.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/tracking.pdf</a>. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (September 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of
days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions
for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for
the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or
current visibility conditions).\22\ The RHR provides that the relevant
sets of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20 percent
clearest days (the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with
the lowest values of the deciview index) and 20 percent most impaired
days (the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the
highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility impairment).\23\ See 40 CFR
51.301. A state must calculate visibility conditions for both the 20
percent clearest days and 20 percent most impaired days for the
baseline period of 2000-2004 and the most recent five-year period for
which visibility monitoring data are available (representing current
visibility conditions). See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). States must
also calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest and most
impaired days \24\ by estimating the conditions that would exist on
those two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility impairment. See
40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data, states must then
calculate, for each Class I area, the amount of progress made since the
baseline period (2000-2004) and how much improvement is left to achieve
in order to reach natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ The ``deciview index'' means a value for a day that is
derived from calculated or measured light extinction, such that
uniform increments of the index correspond to uniform incremental
changes in perception across the entire range of conditions, from
pristine to very obscured. The deciview index is calculated using
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
aerosol measurements. See 40 CFR 51.301.
\23\ This notice also refers to the 20 percent clearest and 20
percent most anthropogenically impaired days as the ``clearest'' and
``most impaired'' or ``most anthropogenically impaired'' days,
respectively.
\24\ The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an error
related to the requirement for calculating two sets of natural
conditions values. The rule says, ``most impaired days or the
clearest days'' where it should say ``most impaired days and
clearest days.'' This is an error that was intended to be corrected
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected in the final
rule language. This is supported by the preamble text at 82 FR 3098:
``In the final version of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of
`or' has been corrected to `and' to indicate that natural visibility
conditions for both the most impaired days and the clearest days
must be based on available monitoring information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, states must
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the
URP--the amount of visibility improvement, measured in deciviews, that
would need to be achieved during each planning period in order to
achieve natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064. The URP is
used in later steps of the reasonable progress analysis for
informational purposes and to provide a non-enforceable benchmark
against which to assess a Class I area's rate of visibility
improvement.\25\ Additionally, in the

[[Page 105511]]

2017 RHR Revisions, EPA provided states the option of proposing to
adjust the endpoint of the URP to account for impacts of anthropogenic
sources outside the United States and/or impacts of certain types of
wildland prescribed fires. These adjustments, which must be approved by
EPA, are intended to avoid any perception that states should compensate
for impacts from international anthropogenic sources and to give states
the flexibility to determine that limiting the use of wildland
prescribed fire is not necessary for reasonable progress. See 82 FR
3107, footnote 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Being on or below the URP is not a ``safe harbor''; i.e.,
achieving the URP does not mean that a Class I area is making
``reasonable progress'' and does not relieve a state from using the
four statutory factors to determine what level of control is needed
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR 3093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help satisfy
the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020
Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides
updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.

C. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) for Regional Haze

The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a LTS that
addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a state's borders
and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions from the state.
The LTS ``must include the enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through
(iv).'' See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress that is
``reasonable progress'' is based on applying the four statutory factors
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential control options
for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is referred to as
a ``four-factor'' analysis (FFA). The outcome of that analysis is the
emission reduction measures that a particular source or group of
sources needs to implement in order to make reasonable progress toward
the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress may
be either new, additional control measures for a source or the existing
emission reduction measures that a source is already implementing. See
2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8-10. Such measures
must be represented by ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures'' in a state's LTS in its SIP. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the FFA. The
first step of this analysis entails selecting the sources to be
evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end, the RHR
requires states to consider ``major and minor stationary sources or
groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources'' of visibility
impairing pollutants for potential control analysis (i.e., FFA). See 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold question at this step is which
visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed. As EPA previously
explained, consistent with the first planning period, EPA generally
expects that each state will analyze at least SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> in selecting sources and determining control measures.
See 2019 Guidance at 12 and 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. A state that
chooses not to consider at least these two pollutants should
demonstrate why such consideration would be unreasonable. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 4.
While states have the option to analyze all sources, the 2019
Guidance explains that ``an analysis of control measures is not
required for every source in each implementation period,'' and that
``[s]electing a set of sources for analysis of control measures in each
implementation period is consistent with the Regional Haze Rule, which
sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a state may
not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a given SIP
revision.'' See 2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that source
selection is the basis of all subsequent control determinations, a
reasonable source selection process ``should be designed and conducted
to ensure that source selection results in a set of pollutants and
sources the evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully
reduce their contributions to visibility impairment.'' See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 3.
EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that each state has
an obligation to submit a LTS that addresses the regional haze
visibility impairment that results from emissions from within that
state. Thus, source selection should focus on the in-state contribution
to visibility impairment and be designed to capture a meaningful
portion of the state's total contribution to visibility impairment in
Class I areas. A state should not decline to select its largest in-
state sources on the basis that there are even larger out-of-state
contributors. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Similarly, in responding to comments on the 2017 RHR
Revisions EPA explained that ``[a] state should not fail to address
its many relatively low-impact sources merely because it only has
such sources and another state has even more low-impact sources and/
or some high impact sources.'' Responses to Comments on Protection
of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016). (December 2016), Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 87-88,
available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, while states have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a state's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second planning
period.\27\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' See CAA 169A(g)(1). EPA has explained that the FFA is
an assessment of potential emission reduction measures (i.e., control
options) for sources; ``use of the terms `compliance' and `subject to
such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1) strongly indicates that
Congress intended the relevant determination to be the requirements
with which sources would have to comply in order to satisfy the CAA's
reasonable progress mandate.'' See 82 FR 3091. Thus, for each source a
state has selected for an FFA,\28\ it must consider a ``meaningful

[[Page 105512]]

set'' of technically feasible control options for reducing emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants. Id. at 3088. The 2019 Guidance
provides that ``[a] state must reasonably pick and justify the measures
that it will consider, recognizing that there is no statutory or
regulatory requirement to consider all technically feasible measures or
any particular measures. A range of technically feasible measures
available to reduce emissions would be one way to justify a reasonable
set.'' See 2019 Guidance at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. See CAA 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-
factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or source
categories, a state may also consider additional emission reduction
measures for inclusion in its LTS, e.g., from other newly adopted,
on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for sources not
selected for four-factor analysis for the second planning period.
\28\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' See 82
FR 3088. However, not all approaches to grouping sources for four-
factor analysis are necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness of
grouping sources in any particular instance will depend on the
circumstances and the manner in which grouping is conducted. If it
is feasible to establish and enforce different requirements for
sources or subgroups of sources, and if relevant factors can be
quantified for those sources or subgroups, then states should make a
separate reasonable progress determination for each source or
subgroup. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further guidance on what
constitutes a reasonable set of control options for consideration: ``A
reasonable four-factor analysis will consider the full range of
potentially reasonable options for reducing emissions.'' See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to add-on controls and other
retrofits (i.e., new emission reduction measures for sources), EPA
explained that states should generally analyze efficiency improvements
for sources' existing measures as control options in their FFAs, as in
many cases such improvements are reasonable given that they typically
involve only additional operation and maintenance costs. Additionally,
the 2021 Clarifications Memo provides that states that have assumed a
higher emission rate than a source has achieved or could potentially
achieve using its existing measures should also consider lower emission
rates as potential control options. That is, a state should consider a
source's recent actual and projected emission rates to determine if it
could reasonably attain lower emission rates with its existing
measures. If so, the state should analyze the lower emission rate as a
control option for reducing emissions. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at
7. EPA's recommendations to analyze potential efficiency improvements
and achievable lower emission rates apply to both sources that have
been selected for FFA and those that have forgone an FFA on the basis
of existing ``effective controls.'' See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5,
10.
After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for
the sources it has selected, a state then collects information on the
four factors with regard to each option identified. EPA has also
explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility
benefits as an additional factor alongside the four statutory
factors.\29\ The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for the types
of information that can be used to characterize the four factors (with
or without visibility), as well as ways in which states might
reasonably consider and balance that information to determine which of
the potential control options is necessary to make reasonable progress.
See 2019 Guidance at 30-36. The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains
further guidance on how states can reasonably consider modeled
visibility impacts or benefits in the context of an FFA. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 12-13, 14-15. Specifically, EPA explained that
while visibility can reasonably be used when comparing and choosing
between multiple reasonable control options, it should not be used to
summarily reject controls that are reasonable given the four statutory
factors. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13. Ultimately, while states
have discretion to reasonably weigh the factors and to determine what
level of control is needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a
state ``must include in its implementation plan a description of how
the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the measure
for inclusion in its long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016), (December 2016), Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019
Guidance at 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As explained above, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal must be
included in a state's LTS and in its SIP.\30\ If the outcome of an FFA
is a new, additional emission reduction measure for a source, that new
measure is necessary to make reasonable progress toward remedying
existing anthropogenic visibility impairment and must be included in
the SIP. If the outcome of an FFA is that no new measures are
reasonable for a source, continued implementation of the source's
existing measures is generally necessary to prevent future emission
increases and thus to make reasonable progress toward the second part
of the national visibility goal: preventing future anthropogenic
visibility impairment. See CAA 169A(a)(1). That is, when the result of
an FFA is that no new measures are necessary to make reasonable
progress, the source's existing measures are generally necessary to
make reasonable progress and must be included in the SIP. However,
there may be circumstances in which a state can demonstrate that a
source's existing measures are not necessary to make reasonable
progress. Specifically, if a state can demonstrate that a source will
continue to implement its existing measures and will not increase its
emission rate, it may not be necessary to have those measures in the
LTS in order to prevent future emission increases and future visibility
impairment. EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further explanation
and guidance on how states may demonstrate that a source's existing
measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 8-10. If the state can make such a
demonstration, it need not include a source's existing measures in the
LTS or its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ States may choose to, but are not required to, include
measures in their long-term strategies beyond just the emission
reduction measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with smoke
management programs may choose to submit their SMP to EPA for
inclusion in their SIPs but are not required to do so. See, e.g., 82
FR 3108-09 (requirement to consider smoke management practices and
smoke management programs under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not
require states to adopt such practices or programs into their SIPs,
although they may elect to do so).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As with source selection, the characterization of information on
each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including
source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four
statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four
factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that
represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for

[[Page 105513]]

its decision making so that the public and EPA can comprehend and
evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to
determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make
reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on
which the state relied to determine the measures necessary to make
reasonable progress. This documentation requirement can be met through
the provision of and reliance on technical analyses developed through a
regional planning process, so long as that process and its output has
been approved by all state participants. In addition to the explicit
regulatory requirement to document the technical basis of their
reasonable progress determinations, states are also subject to the
general principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored
to the statute.\31\ That is, a state's decisions about the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must
be consistent with the statutory goal of remedying existing and
preventing future visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531
(9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir.
2016); North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013);
Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208-10 (10th Cir. 2013); cf.
also Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d
Cir. 2015); Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S.
461, 485, 490 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to
determine what emission reduction measures for selected sources must be
included in a state's LTS for making reasonable progress. Additionally,
the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five
``additional factors'' \32\ that states must consider in developing
their LTSs: (1) emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution
control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable
visibility impairment (RAVI); (2) measures to reduce the impacts of
construction activities; (3) source retirement and replacement
schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire
used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and
smoke management programs; and (5) the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. The 2019 Guidance
provides that a state may satisfy this requirement by considering these
additional factors in the process of selecting sources for an FFA, when
performing that analysis, or both, and that not every one of the
additional factors needs to be considered at the same stage of the
process. See 2019 Guidance at 21. EPA provided further guidance on the
five additional factors in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, explaining
that a state should generally not reject cost-effective and otherwise
reasonable controls merely because there have been emission reductions
since the first planning period owing to other ongoing air pollution
control programs or merely because visibility is otherwise projected to
improve at Class I areas. Additionally, states generally should not
rely on these additional factors to summarily assert that the state has
already made sufficient progress and, therefore, no sources need to be
selected or no new controls are needed regardless of the outcome of
FFAs. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in Sec.
51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state
boundaries, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area.
Consultation allows for each state that impacts visibility in an area
to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control
determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission
management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter-
and intra-RPO consultation and the development of regional emissions
strategies; additional consultations between states outside of RPO
processes may also occur. If a state, pursuant to consultation, agrees
that certain measures (e.g., a certain emission limitation) are
necessary to make reasonable progress at a Class I area, it must
include those measures in its SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A).
Additionally, the RHR requires that states that contribute to
visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider the emission
reduction measures the other contributing states have identified as
being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own sources. See
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a state has been asked to consider or
adopt certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately determines
those measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress, that
state must document in its SIP the actions taken to resolve the
disagreement. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). EPA will consider the
technical information and explanations presented by the submitting
state and the state with which it disagrees when considering whether to
approve the state's SIP. See id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all
circumstances, a state must document in its SIP submission all
substantive consultations with other contributing states. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).

D. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

RPGs ``measure the progress that is projected to be achieved by the
control measures states have determined are necessary to make
reasonable progress based on a four-factor analysis.'' See 82 FR 3091.
Their primary purpose is to assist the public and EPA in assessing the
reasonableness of states' LTSs for making reasonable progress toward
the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii) and (iv).
States in which Class I areas are located must establish two RPGs--one
representing visibility conditions on the clearest days and one
representing visibility on the most anthropogenically impaired days--
for each area within their borders. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The two
RPGs, measured in deciviews, are intended to reflect the projected
impacts, on each set of days, of the emission reduction measures the
state with the Class I area and other contributing states have included
in their LTSs for the second planning period.\33\ The RPGs also account
for the projected impacts of implementing other CAA requirements,
including non-SIP based requirements. Because RPGs are the modeled
result of the measures in states' LTSs (as well as other measures
required under the CAA), they cannot be determined before states have
conducted their FFAs and determined the control measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress.\34\ See 2021 Clarifications Memo
at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts of the
measures all contributing states include in their long-term
strategies. However, due to the timing of analyses and of control
determinations by other states, other on-going emissions changes, a
particular state's RPGs may not reflect all control measures and
emissions reductions that are expected to occur by the end of the
planning period. The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for
addressing the timing of RPG calculations when states are developing
their long-term strategies on disparate schedules, as well as for
adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling approach. See 2019 Guidance at
47-48.
\34\ The 2019 Guidance allows for the possibility of post-
modeling adjustments to the RPGs to account for the fact that final
LTS decisions for the State or for other States may not be known
until late in the process, or even after SIPs are submitted. See
2019 Guidance at 46-48. See also, 82 FR 3078, 3080 (January 10,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the second planning period, the RPGs are set for 2028. RPGs are
not enforceable targets, 40 CFR

[[Page 105514]]

51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ``provide a way for the states to check
the projected outcome of the [long-term strategy] against the goals for
visibility improvement.'' See 2019 Guidance at 46. While states are not
legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in
their RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he long-term
strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline
period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days
since the baseline period.'' Thus, states are required to have emission
reduction measures in their LTSs that are projected to achieve
visibility conditions on the most impaired days that are better than
the baseline period and shows no degradation on the clearest days
compared to the clearest days from the baseline period. The baseline
period for the purpose of this comparison is the baseline visibility
condition--the annual average visibility condition for the period 2000-
2004. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR 3097-98.
So that RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making toward the national visibility goal, the RHR
requires states with Class I areas to compare the 2028 RPG for the most
impaired days to the corresponding point on the URP line (representing
visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility were to improve at a linear
rate from conditions in the baseline period of 2000-2004 to natural
visibility conditions in 2064). If the most impaired days RPG in 2028
is above the URP (i.e., if visibility conditions are improving more
slowly than the rate described by the URP), each state that contributes
to visibility impairment in the Class I area must demonstrate, based on
the FFA required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional
emission reduction measures would be reasonable to include in its LTS.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)
requires that each state contributing to visibility impairment in a
Class I area that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP
provide ``a robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria
used to determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated
and how the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken
into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-
term strategy.'' The 2019 Guidance provides suggestions about how such
a ``robust demonstration'' might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance at 50-
51.
The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications Memo also
explain that projecting an RPG that is on or below the URP based on
only on-the-books and/or on-the-way control measures (i.e., control
measures already required or anticipated before the FFA is conducted)
is not a ``safe harbor'' from the CAA's and RHR's requirement that all
states must conduct an FFA to determine what emission reduction
measures constitute reasonable progress.\35\ The URP is a planning
metric used to gauge the amount of progress made thus far and the
amount left before reaching natural visibility conditions. However, the
URP is not based on consideration of the four statutory factors and
therefore cannot answer the question of whether the amount of progress
being made in any particular planning period is ``reasonable
progress.'' See 82 FR 3093, 3099-3100; 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021
Clarifications Memo at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ In lieu of conducting an FFA, states may elect to show the
source has existing effective controls for the particular pollutants
under evaluation or that the source is shutting down by the end of
the planning period (or close to it).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements

Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this subsection apply either to states with Class I
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. A state with Class I areas within its
borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility
impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the
state. SIP revisions for such states must also provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess visibility conditions in Class I areas, as well as reporting of
all visibility monitoring data to EPA at least annually. Compliance
with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a state's
participation in the IMPROVE monitoring network, which is used to
measure visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class
I areas covered by the visibility program. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)
introductory text, (f)(6)(i) and (iv). The IMPROVE monitoring data is
used to determine the 20 percent most anthropogenically impaired and 20
percent clearest sets of days every year at each Class I area and
tracks visibility impairment over time.
All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii). Section
51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires that all states' SIPs provide for a
statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area; the inventory must include emissions for the most recent
year for which data are available and estimates of future projected
emissions. States must also include commitments to update their
inventories periodically. The inventories themselves do not need to be
included as elements in the SIP and are not subject to EPA review as
part of the Agency's evaluation of a SIP revision.\36\ All states' SIPs
must also provide for any other elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for states to
assess and report on visibility. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the
2019 Guidance, a state may note in its regional haze SIP that its
compliance with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) in 40 CFR part
51, subpart A, satisfies the requirement to provide for an emissions
inventory for the most recent year for which data are available. To
satisfy the requirement to provide estimates of future projected
emissions, a state may explain in its SIP how projected emissions were
developed for use in establishing RPGs for its own and nearby Class I
areas.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ See ``Step 8: Additional requirements for regional haze
SIPs'' in 2019 Guidance at 55.
\37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for regional
haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the RHR also contains a
requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional monitoring
that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class I areas
from a single source or a small group of sources. This is called
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment'' \38\ or RAVI. Under
this provision, if EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has
advised a state that additional monitoring is needed to assess RAVI,
the state must include in

[[Page 105515]]

its SIP revision for the second planning period an appropriate strategy
for evaluating such impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ EPA's visibility protection regulations define ``reasonably
attributable visibility impairment'' as ``visibility impairment that
is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small
number of sources.'' See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward the
RPGs

Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first planning period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and EPA about a state's
implementation of its existing LTS and whether such implementation is
in fact resulting in the expected visibility improvement. See 81 FR
26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016) (82 FR 3119, January 10, 2017). To this end,
every state's SIP revision for the second planning period is required
to describe the status of implementation of all measures included in
the state's LTS, including BART and reasonable progress emission
reduction measures from the first planning period, and the resulting
emissions reductions. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
A core component of the progress report requirements is an
assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest days and
most impaired days. For second planning period progress reports, 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3) requires states with Class I areas within their borders to
first determine current visibility conditions for each area on the most
impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B), and then to
calculate the difference between those current conditions and baseline
(2000-2004) visibility conditions in order to assess progress made to
date. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B). States must also assess the
changes in visibility impairment for the clearest days and most
impaired days since they submitted their first planning period progress
reports. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B), (f)(5). Since different
states submitted their first planning period progress reports at
different times, the starting point for this assessment will vary state
by state.
Similarly, states must provide analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the state over the period since they
submitted their first planning period progress reports. See 40 CFR
51.308(g)(4), (f)(5). Changes in emissions should be identified by the
type of source or activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses changes
in emissions since the period addressed by the previous progress report
and requires states' SIP revisions to include an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the
state. This assessment must include an explanation of whether these
changes in emissions were anticipated and whether they have limited or
impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility
relative to what the state projected based on its LTS for the first
planning period.

G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager (FLM) Coordination

CAA section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a public
hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must consult with
the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that consultation, the state
must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. Consistent with this statutory requirement,
the RHR also requires that states ``provide the [FLM] with an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point early enough in
the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy emission
reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided
by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-
term strategy.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). Consultation that occurs 120
days prior to any public hearing or public comment opportunity will be
deemed ``early enough,'' but the RHR provides that in any event the
opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 60 days before a
public hearing or comment opportunity. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of visibility
impairment in any Class I area and their recommendations on the
development and implementation of strategies to address such
impairment. See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for EPA to evaluate
whether FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has
occurred, the SIP submission should include documentation of the timing
and content of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to EPA
must also describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the
FLMs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision must provide
procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs
regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas. See 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4).

IV. EPA's Evaluation of Florida's Regional Haze Submissions for the
Second Planning Period

On October 8, 2021, June 14, 2024, and October 28, 2024, FDEP
submitted revisions to the Florida SIP to address the State's regional
haze obligations for the second planning period, which runs through
2028, in accordance with CAA section 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f).\39\ The following sections contain EPA's evaluation of
Florida's Haze Plan with respect to the requirements of the CAA and RHR
for the second planning period of the regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed a limited disapproval of
the Florida regional haze SIP since Florida had relied on
requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule to satisfy certain
regional haze requirements. See 76 FR 82219. However, EPA determined
not to finalize the limited disapproval for Florida because the
State had requested additional time to modify its SIP to address the
change in applicability of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to
Florida in the final rule published on August 8, 2011. See 76 FR
48208. EPA then proposed a limited approval of Florida's first
period regional haze plan submission on May 25, 2012. See 77 FR
31240. Later, on August 29, 2013, EPA approved Florida's first
period regional haze plan submitted to EPA on March 19, 2010, as
amended on August 31, 2010, and September 17, 2012. See 78 FR 53250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florida has three mandatory Class I areas within its borders:
Everglades National Park (Everglades), Chassahowitzka National
Wilderness Area (Chassahowitzka), and St. Marks National Wilderness
Area (St. Marks).\40\ The following sections describe Florida's Haze
Plan, including analyses conducted by VISTAS and Florida's
determinations based on those analyses, Florida's assessment of
progress made since the first planning period in reducing emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants, and the visibility improvement
progress at its Class I areas and nearby Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ Bradwell Bay Wilderness Area is one of only two Class I
areas in the country for which visibility is not considered an
important value. As such, the RHR does not apply to Bradwell Bay
Wilderness Area. See 44 FR 69122, (November 3, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Identification of Class I Areas

1. RHR Requirement: Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each
state in which any Class I area is located or ``the emissions from
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility'' in a Class I area to have a plan for making
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. The RHR
implements this statutory requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which
provides that each state's plan ``must

[[Page 105516]]

address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the
State,'' and (f)(2), which requires each state's plan to include a LTS
that addresses regional haze in such Class I areas. To develop a
state's LTS, a state must first determine which Class I areas may be
affected by its own emissions. For out-of-state Class I areas, states
must assess their visibility impacts on a statewide basis, which is
discussed in section IV.A.2 below, and on a source specific basis,
which is discussed in IV.C.2 below.
2. State Assessment: To address 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), Florida
identified Class I areas affected by statewide emissions of the primary
visibility impairing pollutants and then consulted states with Class I
areas affected by Florida's statewide emissions. Specifically, FDEP
presented the results of Particulate Matter Source Apportionment
Technology (PSAT) \41\ modeling, which VISTAS conducted to estimate the
projected impact of statewide SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions across all emissions sectors in 2028 on total light
extinction for the 20 percent most impaired days in all Class I areas
in the VISTAS modeling domain.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ PSAT is Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology,
which is an option in the photochemical visibility impact modeling
performed by VISTAS that is a methodology to track the fate of both
primary and secondary PM. PSAT allows emissions to be tracked
(``tagged'') for individual facilities as well as various
combinations of sectors and geographic areas (e.g., by state). The
PSAT results provide the modeled contribution of each of the tagged
sources or groups of sources to the total visibility impacts.
\42\ FDEP did not include directly emitted PM data in this
analysis because the PSAT analyses performed by VISTAS tagged
statewide emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> and did not
tag primary (directly emitted) direct PM emissions in the analysis
after concluding that SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions,
particularly from point sources, are projected to have the largest
impact on visibility impairment in 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In table 10-1 on page 297 of Florida's 2021 Plan, Florida listed
the top 10 Class I areas outside of the State that are impacted by
Florida sources' emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>, ranked
by absolute impact in Mm-1. The top 10 areas impacted by
Florida's statewide emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> are
located in the following six States: Alabama (Sipsey National
Wilderness Area); Georgia (Cohutta National Wilderness Area (Cohutta),
Okefenokee National Wilderness Area (Okefenokee), and Wolf Island
National Wilderness Area (Wolf Island)); Louisiana (Breton National
Wilderness Area (Breton)); North Carolina (Shining Rock National
Wilderness Area and Swanquarter National Wilderness Area); North
Carolina/Tennessee (Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Joyce
Kilmer-Slickrock National Wilderness Area (Joyce Kilmer)); and South
Carolina (Cape Romain National Wilderness Area (Cape Romain)).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ The visibility impacts projected in 2028 to the top three
Class I areas impacted by Florida's SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions (excluding the three Florida Class I areas)
are: 14.2 percent at Okefenokee (Georgia); 8.8 percent at Wolf
Island (Georgia); and 4.1 percent at Cape Romain (South Carolina).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florida consulted with the VISTAS states (see section 10.1 and
appendix F-1 of the 2021 Plan) and the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) states (see section 10.3 and appendix F-4 of
the 2021 Plan). Similarly, FDEP participated in multistate conference
calls with the Central States Air Resource Agencies Association to
discuss its statewide impacts to Class I areas, including Breton in
Louisiana. In addition to these interstate consultations related to
Florida's statewide visibility impacts to Class I areas, Florida
consulted with Georgia on specific Florida sources impacting visibility
at Georgia's Class I areas. FDEP documented consultations with these
states in section 10 and appendix F of the 2021 Plan. Florida's
interstate consultation is further discussed in section IV.C.2.e of
this proposed rulemaking and section I.F of EPA's Technical Support
Document (TSD).
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to find that Florida adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) regarding identification of its statewide
visibility impacts to Class I areas outside of the State and consulting
with states with Class I areas which may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility due to Florida's
emissions. EPA proposes to find that the State's approach of focusing
on SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> impacts from Florida on the basis
that, for current visibility conditions evaluated for the 2014-2018
period, ammonium sulfate is the dominant visibility impairing pollutant
at most of the VISTAS Class I areas followed by organic carbon and
ammonium nitrate (depending on the area), is reasonable.\44\ VISTAS
focused on controllable emissions from point sources and thus initially
considered impacts from sulfates and nitrates on regional haze at Class
I areas affected by VISTAS states. EPA proposes to find that FDEP
satisfied the part of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) related to the identification
of Class I areas outside of Florida that may be affected by emissions
from within the State and consultation with affected states because the
State analyzed its statewide sulfate and nitrate contributions to total
visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I areas in table 10-1 of
the 2021 Plan; and the State completed consultation with VISTAS and
MANE-VU states via the RPO processes, and, in some cases, on a state-
to-state basis and documented those consultations.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ See figures 2-12 and 2-13 of the 2021 Plan for the VISTAS
Class I areas. See also section IV.C.2.a of this document.
\45\ See section IV.C.2.e of this document and section I.F of
EPA's TSD for additional detail regarding consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the URP

1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to
determine the following for ``each mandatory Class I Federal area
located within the State'': baseline visibility conditions for the
clearest days and most impaired days, natural visibility conditions for
the clearest days and most impaired days, progress to date for the
clearest days and most impaired days, the differences between current
visibility conditions and natural visibility conditions, and the URP.
This section also provides the option for states to propose adjustments
to the URP line for a Class I area to account for visibility impacts
from anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or the impacts
from wildland prescribed fires that were conducted for certain,
specified objectives. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
2. State Assessment: In the 2021 Plan, Florida calculated the
baseline visibility conditions (2000-2004) in table 2-3; current
visibility conditions (2014-2018) in table 2-5; and natural visibility
conditions in table 2-2 for the 20 percent most impaired and 20 percent
clearest days for the State's Class I areas in deciviews, as shown in
table 1, below. Florida also calculated the actual progress made toward
natural visibility conditions to date since the baseline period
(current minus baseline), and the additional progress needed to reach
natural visibility conditions from current conditions (natural minus
current), in deciviews, in table 2-6 (for the 20 percent most impaired
days) and table 2-7 (for the 20 percent clearest days) as shown in
table 2, below.

[[Page 105517]]

Table 1--Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility Conditions in Florida's Class I Areas in Deciviews (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline
Baseline most Current Current most Natural Natural most
Class I area clearest impaired clearest impaired 20% clearest impaired 20%
20% 20% 20% 20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chassahowitzka.............. 15.60 24.52 12.41 17.41 6.00 9.03
Everglades.................. 11.69 19.52 10.37 14.90 5.22 8.33
St. Marks................... 14.34 24.68 11.15 17.39 5.37 9.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--Actual Progress for Visibility Conditions in Florida's Class I Areas in Deciviews (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current minus Current minus Natural minus Natural minus
Class I area baseline for baseline for most current for current for most
clearest 20% impaired 20% clearest 20% impaired 20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chassahowitzka...................... -3.19 -7.11 -6.41 -8.38
Everglades.......................... -1.32 -4.62 -5.15 -6.57
St. Marks........................... -3.19 -7.29 -5.78 -8.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 of the 2021 Plan provide
the URP figures on the 20 percent most impaired days for
Chassahowitzka, Everglades, and St. Marks, respectively. The URPs were
developed using EPA guidance and data collected from the IMPROVE
monitoring network, which is used to measure visibility impairment
caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas covered by the
visibility program. All Florida Class I areas are projected to be below
the 2028 URP values for the second planning period based on VISTAS'
modeling. However, due to issues in the VISTAS model performance for
Everglades, Florida relied on visibility modeling completed by EPA in
2019 for this Class I area.\46\ EPA modeling tended to have better
performance for Everglades due to the use of an expanded modeling
domain, updated boundary conditions (including marine offshore
emissions), and a more recent base year, allowing for more accurate
2028 emissions and visibility projections. Thus, Florida is relying on
EPA's regional haze modeling for Everglades visibility projections and
RPG development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ See Memorandum from Richard A, Wayland, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors
re: Availability of Modeling Data and Associated Technical Support
Document for the EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality Modeling
(September 19, 2019), available at: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/updated_2028_regional_haze_modeling-tsd-2019_0.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/updated_2028_regional_haze_modeling-tsd-2019_0.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. EPA Evaluation: EPA is proposing to find that Florida's Haze
Plan meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) because the State
provides for its three Class I areas: baseline, current and natural
visibility conditions for the 20 percent clearest days and most
impaired days, progress to date for the 20 percent clearest days and
most impaired days, the differences between the current visibility
condition and natural visibility condition, and the URP for each Class
I area in Florida. Further, FDEP provided a reasonable explanation for
using EPA's modeling for 2028 for Everglades is appropriate in this
instance as mentioned above.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ See section 6.6, ``Model Performance for Everglades,'' on
pp. 146-154 of Florida's 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. LTS for Regional Haze

1. RHR Requirement: Each state having a Class I area within its
borders or emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must
develop a LTS for making reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal. See CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in the Background
section of this document, reasonable progress is achieved when all
states contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area are
implementing the measures determined--through application of the four
statutory factors to sources of visibility impairing pollutants--to be
necessary to make reasonable progress. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each
state's LTS must include the enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
All new (i.e., additional) measures that are the outcome of FFAs
are necessary to make reasonable progress and must be in the LTS. If
the outcome of an FFA and other measures necessary to make reasonable
progress is that no new measures are reasonable for a source, that
source's existing measures are necessary to make reasonable progress,
unless the state can demonstrate that the source will continue to
implement those measures and will not increase its emission rate.
Existing measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must
also be in the LTS. In developing its LTS, a state must also consider
the five additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its
reasonable progress determinations, the state must describe the
criteria used to determine which sources or group of sources were
evaluated (i.e., subjected to FFA) for the second planning period and
how the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the
emission reduction measures for inclusion in the LTS. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
States may rely on technical information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select sources for FFA and to satisfy the
documentation requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f). Where an RPO has
performed source selection and/or FFAs (or considered the five
additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states,
those states may rely on the RPO's analyses for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the
states have a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in
the RPO process have approved the technical analyses. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii).
States may also satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)
to engage in interstate consultation with other states that have
emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in a given Class I area under the auspices of intra- and
inter-RPO engagement.
The consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the
emission reductions measures that are

[[Page 105518]]

necessary to make reasonable progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and
(B) require states to consider the emission reduction measures
identified by other states as necessary for reasonable progress and to
include agreed upon measures in their SIPs, respectively. Section
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what happens if states cannot agree on
what measures are necessary to make reasonable progress.
The documentation requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides
that states may meet their obligations to document the technical bases
on which they are relying to determine the emission reductions measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress through an RPO, as long
as the process has been ``approved by all State participants.'' Section
51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions information
considered to determine the measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data
to EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period for
newly submitted data.
2. State Assessment: To develop Florida's LTS, FDEP set criteria to
identify sources to evaluate for potential controls outlined in section
II.B, selected sources based on those criteria, considered the four CAA
factors for the selected sources (or demonstrated the sources have
existing effective controls as explained in IV.C.2.b. below), provided
emissions limits and supporting conditions for incorporation into the
SIP, and evaluated the five additional factors at 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv).
a. Source Selection Criteria: With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i), Florida, through VISTAS, used a two-step source
selection process: (1) Area of Influence (AoI) analysis,\48\ and (2)
PSAT \49\ modeling for sources exceeding an AoI threshold. Florida
considered the four factors (or demonstrated the sources have existing
effective controls as explained in IV.C.2.b. below) for sources that
exceeded both the AoI and PSAT thresholds. Both sulfates and nitrates
were considered in the source selection process. To identify sources
having the most impact on visibility at Class I areas for PSAT
modeling, Florida used an AoI threshold of greater than or equal to
five percent for sulfate and nitrate combined area for all sources
within and outside of the State. Sources selected at the AoI screening
step for PSAT modeling are listed in table 7-11 of the 2021 Plan. Of
these 18 sources, 17 sources located within Florida exceeded the AoI
threshold for any Class I area in the State: Cemex Miami Cement Plant,
Duke Crystal River Power Plant (Duke-Crystal River), FPL Turkey Point,
Georgia-Pacific--Foley Cellulose Perry Mill (Foley), Gulf Clean Energy
Center--Crist Generating Plant, Homestead City Utilities, Jacksonville
Electric Authority--Northside Generating Station (JEA Northside),
Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--New Wales (Mosaic-New Wales), Mosaic
Fertilizer, LLC--Riverview (Mosaic-Riverview), Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--
Bartow (Mosaic-Bartow), Nutrien White Springs Agricultural Chemicals,
Inc. (Nutrien), Rayonier Performance Fibers LLC, Tallahassee City
Purdom Generating Station, Tampa Electric Company--Big Bend Power
Station (TECO-Big Bend), Titan-Pennsuco, WestRock Fernandina Beach
Paper Mill (WestRock-Fernandina), and WestRock Panama City Paper Mill
(WestRock-Panama City).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ The AoI represents the geographical area around a Class I
area in which emissions sources located in the AoI have the
potential to contribute to visibility impairment at that Class I
area. Emissions data from sources in the AoI is then evaluated to
determine which of those sources are most likely contributing to
visibility impairment at that Class I area. VISTAS used AoI analysis
for all point source facilities in the VISTAS modeling domain to
determine the relative visibility impairment impacts at each Class I
area associated with sulfate and nitrate. The results of the
facility-level AoI analyses were then used to rank and prioritize
facilities for further evaluation via PSAT.
\49\ PSAT modeling is a type of photochemical modeling which
quantifies individual facility visibility impacts to an area. See
footnote 40. FDEP applied its PSAT threshold by facility. In the
regional haze SIPs developed for the first round of planning, many
VISTAS states used the AoI approach and a one percent threshold by
unit. Florida followed a different approach using emissions (tons
per year) divided by distance (kilometers) (Q/d) but showed that
this approach screened in a similar number of units to the AoI
approach, and therefore, had similar screening stringency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florida, in coordination with the other VISTAS states, selected
sources for further evaluation using a PSAT threshold of greater than
or equal to one percent visibility impact for sulfate or nitrate.
Sources both within and outside of Florida that were identified for an
emissions control analysis are listed in tables 7-25 and 7-26 of the
2021 Plan, and Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC-South Pierce (Mosaic-South
Pierce) is identified in section 7.6.4.1 of the 2024 Supplement. Twelve
sources were selected by FDEP for an emissions control analysis. In
addition, FDEP identified two additional sources in Georgia and
Kentucky that were requested by FDEP for further analysis as part of
the interstate consultation process. The 12 sources in Florida are:
Duke-Crystal River, Foley, JEA Northside, Lakeland CD McIntosh Jr.
Power Plant (CD McIntosh),\50\ Mosaic-Bartow, Mosaic-New Wales, Mosaic-
South Pierce, Nutrien, Seminole Electric Cooperative Incorporated
(Seminole), TECO-Big Bend, WestRock-Fernandina, and WestRock-Panama
City.\51\ Because no sources exceeded the State's PSAT threshold for
nitrates and because ammonium sulfate continues to be the dominant
visibility impairing pollutant at Class I areas potentially impacted by
Florida sources (as discussed in the following paragraphs), FDEP
focused solely on evaluating potential SO<INF>2</INF> controls to
address regional haze in potentially affected Class I areas. FDEP
allowed the selected facilities to either demonstrate that units
emitting greater than five tons per year (tpy) of SO<INF>2</INF> were
already effectively controlled or complete an FFA for this pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ The fossil fuel steam generating unit No. 3 (EU006) at CD
McIntosh was permanently shut down in 2021. See appendices G-3 and
G-5h of the 2021 Plan.
\51\ In June 2022, the WestRock-Panama City facility announced
its intention to permanently cease operations. See section 7.8.4 of
the 2024 supplement. FDEP included documentation for closure of the
WestRock-Panama City facility in its 2024 Supplement. In addition,
on October 18, 2024, FDEP sent a site inspection report and other
supporting documentation for the WestRock-Panama City closure as an
addendum to the 2024 Supplement. The inspection report documents the
permanent closure and inoperable status of the facility and notes
that any project to restore the facility would be subjected to
mandatory New Source Review and that multiple new source performance
standards would inevitably apply. This additional documentation may
be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FDEP determined that during the 2014 to 2018 timeframe, Florida's
Class I areas were impacted most heavily by sulfate. See figures 2-9
through 2-11 of the 2021 Plan. In Florida's AoI analysis, Florida used
extinction-weighted residence time plots to allow for a separate
analysis of sulfates and nitrates. Figures 7-42, 7-43, and 7-44 of the
2021 Plan contain the sulfate extinction weighted residence time for
Chassahowitzka, St. Marks, and Everglades, respectively, for the 20
percent most impaired days from 2011 to 2016. Figures 7-45, 7-46, and
7-47 contain the nitrate extinction weighted residence time for
Chassahowitzka, St. Marks, and Everglades, respectively, for the 20
percent most impaired days from 2011 to 2016. The sulfate extinction
weighted residence times are significantly higher (approximately ten
times higher) than the nitrate extinction weighted residence times on
the 20 percent most impaired days during this time period,
demonstrating the importance of focusing on SO<INF>2</INF> emission
reductions.

[[Page 105519]]

The Haze Plan shows the VISTAS modeled projections demonstrating
that ammonium sulfate is expected to remain the dominant visibility
impairing pollutant through 2028, by a factor of four or greater over
ammonium nitrate at Class I areas in Florida.\52\ In section 7.4 of the
2021 Plan, FDEP explains the VISTAS analyses relied upon to support the
State's focus on SO<INF>2</INF> control evaluations. Section 10.4.1
provides the State's responses to FLM comments on the exclusion of NOx
control evaluations from the FFAs.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ See figures 2-9 through 2-12 of the 2021 Plan. Figures 2-9
through 2-11 provide 2014-2018 speciated PM data for Florida's Class
I areas showing that ammonium sulfate is the dominant visibility
impairing pollutant. Figures 2-11 and 2-12 provide speciated PM data
for 2014-2018 for the VISTAS Class I areas and neighboring areas on
the 20 percent most impaired days and 20 percent clearest days,
respectively.
\53\ See section 2.5.2 (particularly figures 2-6 through 2-8 for
2009-2013) and section 2.4.1 of the 2021 Plan related to ammonium
nitrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, in section 2.6 of the 2021 Plan, FDEP reviewed
visibility monitoring data for the period 2014-2018 for Chassahowitzka,
Everglades, and St. Marks. Figures 2-9 through 2-11 show the
reconstructed light extinction for the 20 percent most impaired days at
each Florida Class I areas, respectively. The data indicates that
sulfates are the primary visibility impacting species in Florida's
Class I areas during the 2014-2018 timeframe.
Furthermore, figures 7-22 (Chassahowitzka), 7-23 (St. Marks), and
7-24 (Everglades) in the 2021 Plan show that the majority of 2028
predicted nitrate light extinction on the 20 percent most impaired days
at Florida's Class I areas is not caused by NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
from electric generating unit (EGU) and non-EGU point sources.\54\ At
Chassahowitzka, St. Marks, and the Everglades, projected total sulfate
extinction is greater than 10 Mm-1 and projected total
nitrate extinction is less than five Mm-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ Figures 7-20 and 7-21 provides the 2028 visibility
impairment from sulfate and nitrate on the 20 percent most impaired
days for all 18 Class I areas in VISTAS. The figures show the EGU
and non-EGU contributions to total nitrate derived light extinction
in 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section I.A of the TSD to this proposed rulemaking provides a
summary of the State's source selection criteria, including the
technical rationale for the State's focus on SO<INF>2</INF> controls
for the second planning period and the outcomes of the State's source
selection process.
b. Consideration of the Four CAA Factors:
As discussed in section IV.C.2.b.ii (Existing, Effective Control
Demonstrations) below, eight of the 12 selected facilities in Florida
demonstrated that some or all of the selected units are effectively
controlled for SO<INF>2.</INF> FDEP stated that there is a low
likelihood that cost-effective technological advancements exist that
could provide further reasonable emission reductions for these sources.
For the remaining selected sources, FDEP fully considered the four CAA
factors as discussed in section IV.C.2.b.i below.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ As mentioned above, two of the 12 selected facilities
permanently shut down (CD McIntosh Unit 3 and WestRock-Panama City).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. FFAs: Florida considered each of the four CAA factors for Foley,
JEA Northside (Unit 3),\56\ and WestRock-Fernandina and described how
the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the
measures for inclusion in the State's LTS. Florida is proposing
selected permit conditions summarized below for incorporation into the
SIP as measures necessary for reasonable progress for the second
planning period. See section I.B of the TSD to this proposed rulemaking
for additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ JEA Northside Unit 3 was selected for FFA and Units 1 and 2
were shown to be effectively controlled for SO<INF>2</INF>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Foley: Foley is a softwood Kraft Process Pulp Mill that
manufactured bleached market pulps and dissolving cellulose pulps. FDEP
requested that the facility complete an FFA for five units expected to
emit more than five tpy of SO<INF>2</INF> in 2028. FDEP evaluated
emissions reductions measures for SO<INF>2</INF> for the No. 1 Power
Boiler; No. 1 Bark Boiler; and Nos. 2, 3, and 4 Recovery
Furnaces.57 58
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ FDEP determined that an FFA was not needed for Bark Boiler
No. 2 because annual SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from this unit are
significantly lower than five tpy, Florida's threshold for the
second planning period for determining which units are subject to an
FFA for any selected source.
\58\ On January 19, 2024, FDEP published in the Florida
Administrative Register a public notice of hearing for consideration
of a proposed SIP revision, which included the FFA for Foley. The
comment period for this proposed SIP revision closed on March 8,
2024. However, in April 2024, the Foley facility announced its
intent to permanently cease operations. FDEP provided documentation
of the closure in their 2024 Supplement. See section 7.8.3. However,
because Foley is in an ongoing process to dismantle the facility,
FDEP was unable to provide documentation to EPA that the facility
was inoperable. Thus, FDEP provided the FFA for Foley that was
originally part of the January 19, 2024, public engagement plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 1 Power Boiler: The No. 1 Power Boiler serves as the secondary
control device for low volume, high concentration (LVHC) non-
condensable gas (NCG) and fires natural gas, No. 6 fuel oil, tall oil,
and on-specification used oil. When NCGs are routed to the No. 1 Power
Boiler, a pre-scrubber is used to assist with reduction of total
reduced sulfur (TRS) which in turn limits SO<INF>2</INF> production.
The Mill identified a wet scrubber and a dry sorbent injection (DSI)
system as available and feasible controls for this unit. The cost
evaluation for the wet scrubber resulted in an estimated cost
effectiveness of $13,547/ton to reduce actual SO<INF>2</INF> emissions
by approximately 80 tpy. FDEP determined that installation of a wet
scrubber on No. 1 Power Boiler is not cost effective. As for the DSI
system, the cost evaluation resulted in an estimated cost-effectiveness
value of $21,727/ton to reduce actual SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by
approximately 73 tpy, which FDEP considered not cost effective. FDEP,
however, determined that existing low-sulfur fuel restrictions on this
unit were necessary for reasonable progress as follows: fire only
natural gas except during specified times when natural gas is
unavailable or there is a physical problem at the mill that prevents
the firing of natural gas, in which case the unit may fire liquid
fuels; tall oil is prohibited; No. 6 fuel oil purchases must meet a
sulfur content limit of no more than 1.02 percent; and the unit is only
permitted to burn LVHC NCG when the No. 1 Bark Boiler is unavailable or
when necessary for compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, such as
for monitoring for detectable leaks for the closed vent system. Florida
has identified permit conditions for these restrictions for
incorporation into the SIP.
Regarding the other CAA factors, there is no time necessary to
comply with the low-sulfur fuel option, and the use of low sulfur fuel
did not result in non-air environmental impacts. For the wet scrubber
and DSI options, FDEP states that it may take up to four years to
secure funding, make the required technical changes, and perform
testing and monitoring to ensure proper system operation for the
installation of wet scrubbers and DSI systems. Energy and non-air
environmental impacts include additional electrical costs associated
with DSI and scrubber operation, and additional fresh water and
wastewater disposal use for the wet scrubber. Additionally, the No. 1
Power Boiler is assumed to have 30 years or more of remaining useful
life, and an interest rate of 3.25 was used when considering the
annualized costs of controls.
No. 1 Bark Boiler: The No. 1 Bark Boiler serves as the primary
control device for LVHC NCGs and provides the Mill with 200,000 pounds
per hour (lbs/hr) (24-hour block average basis) of steam. The No. 1
Bark Boiler fires natural gas, No. 6 fuel oil, tall oil, and on-
specification used oil and is equipped with a cyclone collector and

[[Page 105520]]

a wet venturi scrubber. Currently, permit conditions for No. 1 Bark
Boiler require the wet venturi scrubber to meet pH and flow rate
restrictions only when the TRS pre-scrubber is not operational. For the
FFA, FDEP evaluated one control option which consists of running the
existing wet venturi scrubber whenever NCGs or oil are combusted in the
No. 1 Bark Boiler, maintaining a minimum pH of 8 (three-hour block
average), and flow rate of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (three-hour
block average), rather than only when the TRS pre-scrubber is
unavailable. The increase in the operation of the wet scrubber requires
an increase in the amount of time caustic is added to the wet scrubber
which requires the addition of an antiscalant to minimize fouling and
scaling due to caustic buildup in the boiler. FDEP evaluated these
operational changes as technically feasible, and the cost evaluation
resulted in an estimated annualized cost effectiveness of $2,627/ton to
remove approximately 96 tpy of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. FDEP
determined this control to be cost effective. Implementing the
increased operation of the wet scrubber requires adding additional
caustic and scalant to the scrubber control system, which could be done
with within 12 months with no negative non-air environmental impacts.
The No. 1 Bark Boiler is assumed to have 30 years or more of remaining
useful life, and an interest rate of 3.25 percent was used when
considering the annualized costs of controls. Florida has identified
permit conditions for these requirements for incorporation into the
SIP.
FDEP also determined that certain existing measures are necessary
for reasonable progress and proposed for incorporation into the SIP low
sulfur fuel restrictions that are similar to the restrictions proposed
for No. 1 Power, except the No. 1 Bark Boiler is permitted to burn wood
in addition to natural gas as the primary fuel type. FDEP is proposing
permit conditions reflecting these requirements for incorporation into
the SIP.
Nos 2, 3, and 4 Recovery Furnaces: The three recovery furnaces are
low-odor, non-direct contact evaporator units that burn the organic
material present in black liquor (a byproduct in the Kraft Mill
process). The furnaces fire natural gas, No. 6 fuel oil, No. 2 fuel
oil, tall oil, ultra-low sulfur diesel, on-specification used oil, and
methanol (methanol is only fired in select furnaces). Foley considered
adding several common flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems to the
recovery furnaces, including spray dryer absorbers (SDA), DSI, and
conventional wet scrubbers. Considering the antiquated design of the
furnaces, FDEP found the addition of a wet scrubber to be the only
feasible control technology.
FDEP identified a wet scrubber as a potential control option for
the recovery furnaces, but noted that it is not aware of the
installation of a wet scrubber on any recovery furnaces across the
country. The cost effectiveness to add a wet scrubber was estimated at
values of: $7,779/ton to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> by approximately 592
tons annually for Recovery Furnace No. 2; $5,197/ton to reduce
SO<INF>2</INF> by approximately 1,050 tons annually for Recovery
Furnace No. 3; and $6,587/ton to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> by approximately
831 tons annually for Recovery Furnace No. 4. FDEP determined that
adding a wet scrubber was not cost effective. FDEP estimated that it
would take up to four years to install new controls at the recovery
furnaces. Typical energy and non-air quality impacts of compliance
include caustic and sulfuric acid costs, additional electrical costs
associated with scrubber operation, additional fresh water for scrubber
needs and wastewater disposal. It is assumed that the recovery furnaces
have at least 30 years of remaining useful life, and an interest rate
of 3.5 percent was used when considering the annualized costs of
controls.
FDEP determined that the following existing measures at the
recovery furnaces are necessary for reasonable progress: burn black
liquor as the primary fuel; natural gas and liquid fuels may supplement
recovery operations; a maximum sulfur content of 1.02 percent for
purchased No. 6 fuel oil; and a SO<INF>2</INF> emissions cap of 3,200
tons per consecutive 12 operating months as measured by a continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS).
State Conclusions: Regarding the No. 1 Power Boiler, FDEP
determined that there were no cost-effective emission reductions for
the No. 1 Power Boiler and determined that the existing measures at the
No. 1 Power Boiler are necessary for reasonable progress. Thus, FDEP
proposed low-sulfur fuel restrictions for incorporation into the SIP
for the No. 1 Power Boiler as described above.
Regarding the No. 1 Bark Boiler, FDEP determined that continuously
running the wet venturi scrubber with added caustic and scalant to
maintain a minimum pH of 8 is cost-effective and, therefore, the State
has determined that these controls are necessary for reasonable
progress. FDEP also determined that certain existing low sulfur fuel
restrictions are necessary for reasonable progress and proposed low
sulfur fuel restrictions that are similar to the restrictions proposed
for the No. 1 Power Boiler.
Regarding the Nos. 2, 3, and 4 Recovery Furnaces, after conducting
a site visit at Foley and discussing the physical constraints and
reviewing the costs, FDEP determined that installation of a wet
scrubber located after the electro-static precipitator (ESP) is not
cost-effective and, therefore, the existing measures described above
for the Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Recovery Furnaces are necessary for reasonable
progress.
FDEP identified permit conditions reflecting these new and existing
SO<INF>2</INF> measures in the ``Materials to be Incorporated into the
SIP'' section of the Second 2024 Supplement for incorporation into the
regulatory portion of the Florida SIP.
(b) JEA Northside (Unit 3): JEA Northside is a power plant located
in north Jacksonville. The main sources of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions at
JEA Northside are Nos. 1 and 2 (EU 026 and EU 027) circulating
fluidized-bed (CFB) Boilers and the No. 3 (EU 003) Boiler. FDEP
conducted an FFA for JEA Northside's No. 3 Boiler. For the Nos. 1 and 2
CFB Boilers, Florida relied on an existing effective controls
demonstration, as discussed below in section IV.C.2.b.ii.
The No. 3 Boiler is a natural gas-fired electric utility steam
generating unit as defined in 40 CFR 63.10042 that fires natural gas
and limited amounts of No. 6 fuel oil. The FFA for the No. 3 Boiler
identified the following available controls: using lower sulfur No. 6
fuel oil (from 1.8 percent to 1.0 percent), using ultra-low sulfur No.
2 fuel oil, or installing a wet FGD system. The cost effectiveness
values for each control option are as follows: switching to a lower
sulfur No. 6 fuel oil is $3,053/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed, reducing
emissions by 49.9 tpy; switching to No. 2 fuel oil is $7,334/ton of
SO<INF>2</INF> removed, reducing emissions by 122.81 tpy; and
installing a wet FGD system is $177,856/ton of SO<INF>2</INF>
removed.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ FDEP provided these cost effectiveness values because FDEP
contends the costs provided by JEA were not justified adequately or
were inconsistent with EPA's ``Air Pollution Control Cost Manual''
(Cost Manual) in the cost analysis. In all calculations, JEA used a
seven percent interest rate instead of 3.25 percent (the current
bank prime interest rate), used a 20-year lifetime instead of a more
conservative 30-year lifetime, and included property taxes,
insurance, and administration costs in the direct operating costs,
which FDEP contends were not justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the other CAA factors, FDEP estimated that it would take
nine months to one year to complete a switch to No. 2 or No. 6 fuel oil
because a boiler outage of approximately two to

[[Page 105521]]

three months would be necessary to perform the new burner installation,
and the State found no non-air environmental impacts from a switch.
FDEP estimates installing a wet FGD system would take 36 months based
on EPA's Integrated Planning Model (IPM) estimates and the need for
engineering design, equipment procurement, and installation, and
testing. Regarding energy and non-air environmental impacts of the wet
FGD, FDEP states that there are energy penalties due to the pressure
drop through the absorbers and the energy usage by auxiliary systems
and estimates that the total energy impacts would be about 30,000
megawatt-hours for the maximum possible operation of Unit 3 currently
authorized. Operation of wet FGD will also require the delivery,
handling, and storage of limestone; the handling and disposal of FGD
by-product (i.e., gypsum); and the use of process water. FDEP
determined the remaining useful life factor for each control option to
be 30 years and used a 3.25 percent interest rate when considering the
annualized costs of controls.
State Conclusions: Regarding JEA Northside Unit 3, FDEP determined
that switching to No. 2 fuel oil and installing a wet FGD system are
not cost effective, and therefore, are not necessary for reasonable
progress. FDEP determined that switching to a lower sulfur No. 6 fuel
oil is cost effective, and selected it as a measure necessary for
reasonable progress for JEA Northside Unit 3.
FDEP identified permit conditions reflecting this new
SO<INF>2</INF> measure in the ``Materials to be Incorporated into the
SIP'' section of the 2021 Plan for incorporation into the regulatory
portion of the Florida SIP.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ See p. 13 of 34 of the ``Materials to be Incorporated into
the SIP'' section to the administrative file of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) WestRock-Fernandina: WestRock-Fernandina is a fully integrated
Kraft linerboard mill that produces linerboard from wood pulp and pulp
derived from recycled corrugated containers. The Mill conducted
projects totaling $15.9 million in capital costs in 2016 and 2017 to
reduce both actual and allowable SO<INF>2</INF> emissions so that
modeled allowable emissions would demonstrate compliance with the 2010
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. Table 7-31 in the 2021 Plan shows the decrease in
emissions levels that have occurred since the 2016-2017 timeframe. The
last line in table 7-31 contains the updated, projected emissions from
this facility. The largest SO<INF>2</INF> sources at the Mill are the
No. 5 and No. 7 Power Boilers and the No. 4 and No. 5 Recovery Boilers.
The No. 5 Power Boiler burns carbonaceous fuel such as biomass,
natural gas, ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD), or No. 2 fuel oil.
Currently, this unit is prohibited from using No. 6 fuel oil or being
used as a backup NCG control device unless otherwise approved by FDEP's
Division of Air Resource Management. Additionally, an engineering
analysis must be submitted providing reasonable assurance that the
boiler can comply with SO<INF>2</INF> emissions standards of 15.0 lb/
hour based on a 3-hour block average, as determined by data collected
from a CEMS, during all periods of operation except when operating as a
backup control device firing NCGs. The FFA for the No. 5 Power Boiler
identified installation of a wet scrubber, installation of a wet
scrubber with a stack liner, or installation of a DSI system as
potential additional controls. The cost effectiveness values of these
additional controls are as follows: installing a wet scrubber is
$285,615/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed; installing a wet scrubber with
stack liner is $298,499/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed; and installing
DSI is $277,093/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed. According to the FFA, it
would take at least four years to install a wet scrubber or DSI system,
and there are energy and non-air environmental impacts that would
result from installing these controls, such as an increase in water and
electricity usage and wastewater generation. The No. 5 Power Boiler is
assumed to have a remaining useful life of 20 years or more; however,
FDEP conservatively used a lifetime of 30 years to annualize costs and
used a 3.25 percent interest rate when considering the annualized costs
of controls. FDEP determined that these controls are not cost
effective.
The No. 7 Power Boiler serves as a backup NCG control device and
fires coal, oil, or natural gas. The FFA for the No. 7 Power Boiler
identified reducing coal usage to 125 tons per day (tpd), installing a
wet scrubber after the existing ESP, installing a DSI with an existing
ESP, installing SDA with new fabric filter, or removing all coal firing
as potentially available controls. The cost effectiveness values of
these controls are as follows: reducing coal usage is a cost savings of
$1,868/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed; installing a wet scrubber is
$5,641/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed, reducing emissions by 1,222 tpy;
installing a wet scrubber with stack liner is $6,028/ton of
SO<INF>2</INF> removed, reducing emissions by 1,222 tpy; installing DSI
is $8,776/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed, reducing emissions by 748 tpy;
installing an SDA is $16,398/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed, reducing
emissions by 1,184 tpy; and removing all coal firing is $7,374/ton of
SO<INF>2</INF> removed, reducing emissions by 1,171 tpy. WestRock-
Fernandina indicated they would need until 2024 to fully implement the
coal reduction option but could begin limiting coal usage as early as
2022, because the Mill is contractually obligated to purchase a set
amount of coal through 2021. There were no energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts associated with the reduction of coal usage. The
installation of a wet scrubber would increase water and electricity
usage and wastewater generation. The installation of a DSI system or an
SDA system would increase solid waste and electricity usage. The No. 7
Power Boiler fly ash is currently used in cement manufacturing but
would have to be landfilled if contaminated with sorbent. The No. 7
Power Boiler has approximately 20 years or more of useful life
remaining; however, FDEP conservatively used a useful life of 30 years
to annualize the costs. FDEP used a 3.25 percent interest rate, a 98
percent control efficiency for FGD, a 60 percent control efficiency for
DSI, a 95 percent control efficiency for SDA, and a 97 percent control
efficiency for removing all coal in the calculations for No. 7 Power
Boiler.
The No. 4 Recovery Boiler fires black liquor solids or No. 2 fuel
oil and uses natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil for startup. No. 5 Recovery
Boiler fires black liquor solids or No. 6 fuel oil and burns natural
gas or No. 2 fuel oil for startup only. Currently, the SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions from Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers recovery boilers shall not
exceed 150.0 lb/hour based on a 3-hour block average as determined by
data collected from a certified CEMS or other methods approved by the
Division of Air Resource Management. Alternatively, Nos. 4 and 5
Recovery Boilers may comply with the combined SO<INF>2</INF> emissions
cap which shall not exceed 300.0 lb/hour based on a 3-hour block
average as determined by data collected from a certified CEMS. The FFA
for the Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers identified the installation of
wet scrubber as a potential additional control for each recovery
boiler. FDEP determined that the cost effectiveness for the wet
scrubber is $282,375/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed for the No. 4
Recovery Boiler and $169,425/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed for the No.
5 Recovery Boiler.\61\ FDEP

[[Page 105522]]

determined that WestRock-Fernandina would need a minimum of four years
to install a wet scrubber and concluded that there are energy and non-
air environmental impacts associated with the installation of a wet
scrubber, including increased water and electricity usage and
wastewater generation. The Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers are assumed to
have 20 years of remaining useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ FDEP provided these cost effectiveness values because it
contends that the costs provided by Westrock were not justified
adequately or were inconsistent with the Cost Manual in the cost
analysis provided by WestRock-Fernandina. WestRock used a 4.75%
interest rate instead of 3.25% (the current bank prime interest
rate), used a 15-year lifetime for equipment, and included property
taxes without sufficient justification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

State Conclusions: For WestRock-Fernandina's No. 7 Power Boiler,
FDEP determined that removing all coal-firing or installing a wet
scrubber, DSI, or SDA are not cost effective, and are therefore not
necessary for reasonable progress. For the No. 7 Power Boiler, FDEP
determined that reducing coal usage to 125 tpd is cost effective and is
a measure that is necessary for reasonable progress.\62\ Thus, FDEP
identified the permit conditions reflecting this new SO<INF>2</INF>
measure for WestRock-Fernandina's No. 7 Power Boiler in the ``Materials
to be Incorporated into the SIP'' sections \63\ of the 2021 Plan and
appendix A-1 of the 2024 Supplement for incorporation into the
regulatory portion of the Florida SIP. These conditions may be found in
permit number 0890003-072-AC of the 2021 Plan and 0890003-074-AC and of
the 2024 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ FDEP is also proposing for incorporation into the SIP an
interim coal usage restriction of 250 tpd. The 250 tpd coal usage
limitation became effective on January 1, 2022, and was included in
the 2021 Plan. It was intended as an interim measure that would
apply until the facility could meet the 125 tpd usage restriction,
which became effective on April 24, 2024. The facility is now
subject to the more restrictive 125 tpd coal cap.
\63\ See pp. 15-16 of the administrative file of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For WestRock-Fernandina's No. 5 Power Boiler, FDEP determined that
neither the installation of a wet scrubber--with or without the stack
liner--nor the installation of a DSI system were cost effective.
Likewise, FDEP determined that installation of wet scrubber for Nos. 4
and 5 Recovery Boilers was not cost effective. Therefore, FDEP
determined that existing measures at the No. 5 Power Boiler and the
Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers are necessary for reasonable progress.
These existing measures, contained in permit number 0890003-046-AC,
were already incorporated into the SIP through the Nassau County
Florida SO<INF>2</INF> Attainment Plan SIP revision approved by EPA on
July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30749).\64\ A list of the specific conditions
included for regional haze informational purposes may be found in the
``Materials Submitted for Informational Purposes Only'' section, in
appendix A-6 of the 2024 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ According to section 7.8.2 of the 2021 Plan, WestRock-
Fernandina conducted projects totaling $15.9 million in capital
costs in 2016 and 2017 to reduce both actual and allowable
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions so that modeled allowable emissions would
demonstrate compliance with the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. With
these projects, the SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit for the No. 5
Power Boiler was reduced from 550 pounds per hour (lb/hr) to 15 lb/
hr. In 2020, the facility increased the black liquor solids content,
which helps stabilize operation of the recovery boilers, thus,
allowing for improved SO<INF>2</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Existing, Effective Control Demonstrations: As described in
section 7.6.4.1 of the 2021 Plan, FDEP proposed existing SO<INF>2</INF>
measures as necessary for reasonable progress for incorporation into
the Florida SIP for the affected units at the following eight
facilities: Duke-Crystal River, JEA Northside, Mosaic-Bartow, Mosaic-
New Wales, Mosaic-South Pierce, Nutrien, Seminole, and TECO-Big Bend.
FDEP contends that these sources are effectively controlled and are
unlikely to have additional controls available for reasonable progress.
Regarding Duke-Crystal River, Florida is proposing for adoption
into the SIP permit conditions that require compliance with a limit of
0.20 pound per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) of
SO<INF>2</INF> for the fossil fuel steam generating Unit 4 and Unit 5
in lieu of performing a detailed FFA for these units. This emission
limit is the alternative emission limit currently applicable to Duke-
Crystal River under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)
rule.\65\ Including this emission limit in the SIP would also have the
effect of removing the hydrogen chloride MATS compliance option for
Duke-Crystal River. Florida concluded that these units are effectively
controlled for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and that additional reasonable
controls are unlikely to be found. Therefore, Florida is proposing for
adoption into the SIP permit conditions for the 0.20 lb/MMBtu
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limitation and additional permit conditions
that allow the citrus combined cycle station Units 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B
to combust only pipeline natural gas.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ The MATS rule is located at 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU.
The MATS rule provides the 0.20 lb/MMBtu SO<INF>2</INF> limit as an
alternative to meeting an emission limit for hydrogen chloride.
\66\ The permits are located in appendix G-3a1-2 of the 2021
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding JEA Northside, Florida proposed for adoption into the SIP
permit conditions for Units 1 and 2 that include an SO<INF>2</INF>
limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu, and the MATS-based SO<INF>2</INF> emission
limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu.\67\ Florida is proposing both the
SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu and the SO<INF>2</INF> emission
limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu as reflecting effective controls for JEA
Northside Units 1 and 2 because the SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit of
0.15 lb/MMBtu had exemptions during period of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. The MATS limit applies continuously and has work practice
standards which apply during startup and shutdown. Florida concluded
that this unit is effectively controlled for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions
and that additional reasonable controls are unlikely to be found.
Therefore, Florida is proposing for incorporation into the SIP permit
conditions for the 0.20 lb/MMBtu emission limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ The permits are located in appendix G-3c1-2 of the 2021
Plan and appendix A-2 of the 2024 Supplement. See section 7.6.4.1
and appendix A-2 of the 2024 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Mosaic-Bartow, Florida reviewed existing SO<INF>2</INF>
measures at three sulfuric acid plants (SAPs) at the facility, Nos. 4
through 6. This facility reduced SO<INF>2</INF> emissions to bring the
Hillsborough-Polk nonattainment area into attainment for the 2010
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS, including upgrades to the catalyst beds. The
SO<INF>2</INF> generated in these systems is catalytically oxidized to
sulfur trioxide (SO<INF>3</INF>) over the catalyst beds at a rate of
99.7 percent or higher. The facility is required to comply with a
three-unit cap of 1,100 pounds/hour on a 24-hour block average as
determined by continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS). Each SAP at
the facility is required to meet a limit of four pounds (lbs)
SO<INF>2</INF> per ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid produced. Florida
states that this limit is consistent with the SO<INF>2</INF> best
available control technology (BACT) determinations for sulfur burning,
double-absorption sulfuric acid plants with cesium-promoted catalysts
at a range of 3.0 to 4.0 lbs per ton in EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse (RBLC) database.\68\ Florida concluded that these units
are effectively controlled for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and that
additional reasonable controls are unlikely to be found. These
SO<INF>2</INF> limits are already incorporated into Florida's SIP.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ The RBLC is located at: <a href="http://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information">www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information</a>.
\69\ See 85 FR 9666 (February 20, 2020); 40 CFR 52.520(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Mosaic-New Wales, Florida reviewed existing
SO<INF>2</INF> measures at five SAPs at the facility, Nos. 1 through 5.
This facility also reduced SO<INF>2</INF> emissions to bring the
Hillsborough-Polk nonattainment area into attainment for the 2010
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. The facility was required to comply with a five-
unit SO<INF>2</INF>

[[Page 105523]]

emissions cap of 1,090 lbs per hour on a 24-hour block average as
determined by CEMS. SAP Nos. 1-3 are each required to meet an
SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 3.5 lbs per ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid
produced on a 24-hr rolling average and four lbs per ton on a three-
hour rolling average. SAPs 4 and 5 are each required to meet a limit of
four lbs per ton of sulfuric acid produced. Florida affirms that this
limit is consistent with the SO<INF>2</INF> BACT determinations for
sulfur burning, double-absorption sulfuric acid plants with cesium-
promoted catalysts which appear in a range of 3.0 to 4.0 lbs per ton of
sulfuric acid produced in EPA's RBLC database. Florida concluded that
these units are effectively controlled for SO<INF>2,</INF> and
additional reasonable controls are unlikely to be found. These
SO<INF>2</INF> limits are already incorporated into Florida's SIP.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Mosaic-South Pierce, FDEP requested that the facility
evaluate whether any additional measures were available to reduce
SO<INF>2</INF>.\71\ Specifically, FDEP requested that Mosaic-South
Pierce complete an FFA for SAPs Nos. 10 and 11 or demonstrate that
those units were already effectively controlled for SO<INF>2</INF>.
Sulfuric Acid Plants Nos. 10 and 11 are double absorption sulfuric acid
systems equipped with two absorption towers in series to react
SO<INF>3</INF> with water to produce sulfuric acid. The SO<INF>2</INF>
generated in a double absorption system's sulfur furnace is
catalytically oxidized to SO<INF>3</INF> over catalyst beds at a very
high rate (99.7 percent or greater), which results in relatively low
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions as compared to a single absorption system. The
second bed uses a cesium-promoted catalyst, which increases the overall
SO<INF>2</INF>-to-SO<INF>3</INF> conversion rate. FDEP determined that
the SAPs Nos. 10 and 11 at Mosaic-South Pierce are effectively
controlled for SO<INF>2</INF> based on a review of EPA's RBLC database
which identified the combination of dual absorption design and cesium-
promoted catalysts as BACT for sulfur-burning, non-single absorption
column sulfuric acid plants and are therefore unlikely to have
additional SO<INF>2</INF> controls identified as part of an FFA.
Florida has identified permit conditions for incorporation into the SIP
that prohibit combined SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from SAPs 10 and 11
from exceeding 750 lbs SO<INF>2</INF> per hour on a 24-hour block
average as determined by CEMS.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ On February 1, 2023, the FDEP requested that Mosaic
evaluate whether any additional measures were available to reduce
SO<INF>2</INF> emission from the Mosaic-South Pierce facility. See
section 7.6.4.1 of the 2024 Supplement.
\72\ The permit is located in appendix A-5 of the 2024
Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Nutrien, this facility has recently completed significant
work to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions to achieve SO<INF>2</INF>
limits imposed by a consent decree entered on February 26, 2015.\73\ As
part of the consent decree, Nutrien was required to reduce
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and meet more stringent SO<INF>2</INF>
emission limits at SAPs C, D, E, and F. Nutrien elected to permanently
shut down SAPs C and D in 2014, reducing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from
these SAPs to zero. On March 31, 2017, FDEP issued permit No. 0470002-
107-AC to Nutrien to complete upgrades on SAP E and SAP F, which
included changing out and augmenting the converter catalyst in the
SAPs, allowing them to meet new SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits of 2.6
lbs per ton on a three-hour rolling average (excluding startups and
shutdowns) and 2.3 lbs per ton limit on a 365-day rolling average
(including startups and shutdowns), as required by the consent decree.
Nutrien was required to comply with these limits on January 1, 2018,
for SAP F and January 1, 2020, for SAP E. Additionally, on January 1,
2023, an 840 lbs/hour SO<INF>2</INF> limit on a 24-hour block averaging
period was applied to the combined emissions from SAP E and F.\74\
Florida states that these limits are consistent with recent BACT
determinations made for similar double-absorption, sulfur-burning SAPs.
Florida concluded that this unit is effectively controlled for
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and that additional reasonable controls are
unlikely to be found. Florida did not identify the permit conditions
from Permit No. 0470002-132-AC, issued on September 22, 2022, for
incorporation into the SIP because they have already been incorporated
through Florida's Supplemental SSM SIP as approved by EPA on August 4,
2023 (88 FR 51702).\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ The consent decree entered on February 26, 2015, is located
in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. This consent decree
terminated on April 3, 2023.
\74\ See section 7.6.4.1 of the 2024 Supplement.
\75\ Permit No. 0470002-132-AC, issued on September 22, 2022, to
Nutrien is located in appendix A-4 of the 2024 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding TECO-Big Bend, this facility has accepted the MATS
SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu for fossil fuel steam generators
No. 3 (EU003) \76\ and No. 4 (EU004). This emission limit is the
alternative emission limit currently applicable to TECO-Big Bend under
the MATS rule. Including this emission limit in the SIP would also have
the effect of removing the hydrogen chloride MATS compliance option for
TECO-Big Bend. Florida concluded that this unit is effectively
controlled for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and that additional reasonable
controls are unlikely to be found. Therefore, Florida identified permit
conditions with these SO<INF>2</INF> limits for Unit 4 at TECO-Big Bend
for incorporation into the Florida SIP.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ Since submission of the 2021 Plan, Unit 3 at TECO-Big Bend
retired on April 26, 2023. The Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD)
Acid Rain Retired Unit Exemption Form is included in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking. For additional information regarding the
shutdown and demolition of Unit 3, see the May 16, 2024 news release
from TECO titled ``Tampa Electric has Demolished Old Chimneys at Big
Bend Power Plant'', available at: https://www.tampaelectric.com/
mediacenter/2024/Tampa-Electric-has-Demolished-Old-Chimneys-at-Big-
Bend-Power-Plant/
#:~:text=The%20skyline%20of%20Apollo%20Beach,new%20view%20is%20Dramat
ically%20different.%E2%80%9D.
\77\ The permits are located in appendix G-3 of the 2021 Plan
and the permit conditions proposed for adoption into the SIP are
listed under the ``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP''
section in filename ``Final SIP 2021-01 Regional Haze.pdf'' included
with the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Seminole, this facility accepted the MATS SO<INF>2</INF>
limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu for the steam electric generator No. 1 (EU001)
and No. 2 (EU002) in the same manner as discussed with TECO-Big Bend in
the preceding paragraph. Florida concluded that this unit is
effectively controlled for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and that additional
reasonable controls are unlikely to be found. Therefore, Florida
identified permit conditions with these SO<INF>2</INF> limits for
incorporation into the Florida SIP.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ The permits are located in appendix G-3h of the 2021 Plan
and the permit conditions proposed for adoption into the SIP are
listed under the ``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP''
section in filename ``Final SIP 2021-01 Regional Haze.pdf'' included
with the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section I.B of the TSD to this proposed rulemaking provides a more
detailed summary of the State's assessment of Florida's FFAs and
existing effective controls, and the associated emissions control
measures proposed for incorporation into the Florida SIP.
c. Documentation of Technical Basis: With respect to emissions
information documentation pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), section
4 of the 2021 Plan explains the State's use of emissions inventories to
develop the plan with additional documentation provided in appendix B.
Florida, through VISTAS, developed a 2011 statewide base year emissions
inventory which was used to project emissions out to 2028, the end of
the second planning period.\79\ FDEP also evaluated emissions data from
2017, the year of the most recent triennial emissions data available

[[Page 105524]]

at the time of the development of the 2021 Plan. Statewide emissions
from the 2014 and 2017 National Emissions Inventories (NEIs) are
provided in tables 13-11, 13-12, and 13-13 of the 2021 Plan for
PM<INF>2.5,</INF> NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\79\ Table 4-1 provides a summary of the 2011 baseline emissions
inventory for Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to cost and engineering information documentation
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), section 7.8 of the Haze Plan
details the State's analysis of the FFAs for Foley, JEA Northside, and
WestRock-Fernandina located in appendix G which evaluated the four
factors, including the cost of compliance factor, and provided detailed
cost calculations for potential new control measures assessed as part
of the engineering analyses. In addition, section 7.6.4.1 of the 2021
Plan describes the State's analysis of seven sources with existing,
effective SO<INF>2</INF> measures: Duke-Crystal River, JEA Northside
(Units 1 and 2), Mosaic-Bartow, Mosaic-New Wales, Nutrien, Seminole,
and TECO-Big Bend \80\ and the 2024 Supplement summarizes existing,
effective SO<INF>2</INF> measures at Mosaic-South Pierce in section
7.6.4.1 on pages 5-6 of the narrative and in appendix B-2 of the 2024
Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ FDEP also included the shutdown of Unit 3 of CD McIntosh in
section 7.6.4.1, ``Effective Controls Analyses,'' of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to monitoring information documentation pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), the State assessed baseline (2000-2004), current
(2014-2018), and natural visibility conditions for Florida's Class I
areas in section 2 of the 2021 Plan with supporting information located
in appendix C.
With respect to modeling information documentation pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), sections 5 and 6 of the 2021 Plan describe the
modeling methods used to develop the plan with additional documentation
provided in appendix E and results of the RPG modeling in section 8 of
the plan. Appendix D contains AoI analyses documentation. Section I.E
of the TSD to this proposed rulemaking provides a more detailed summary
of the State's assessment of documentation of the technical basis for
the 2021 Plan under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
d. Assessment of the Five Additional Factors in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv):
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv), Florida considered each of
the five additional factors in developing the State's LTS and evaluated
their relevancy for the second period. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), FDEP assessed emission reductions due to ongoing
air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI, in
the development of the State's 2011 baseline and 2028 projected
emission inventories. The impact of these existing and on the way air
pollution control programs are reflected in the 2028 RPGs for the
Florida Class I areas, except for the measures listed in section 8.2 of
the 2021 Plan.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), FDEP evaluated measures
in the State designed to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities in section 7.9.2 of the 2021 Plan. Florida's rules for air
quality control include requirements to prevent fugitive dust from
becoming airborne and also limit the opacity of fugitive emissions to
equal to or less than 20 percent. The requirements of Florida rule 62-
296.320, F.A.C., General Pollutant Emission Limiting Standards, include
preventive measures for construction activities to prevent fugitive
dust from becoming airborne.\81\ FDEP also noted that fine soils were a
relatively minor contributor to visibility impairment at the Class I
areas in Florida from the baseline period of 2000-2004 through to the
recent period of 2014-2018, as discussed in section 2.4.2 and shown in
figures 2-1 through 2-5 (2000-2004 period); figures 2-6 through 2-8
(2009-2013 period); and figures 2-9 through 2-13 (2014-2018 period) of
the 2021 Plan. Thus, any fine soil contributions to regional haze from
Florida construction activities are relatively minor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ Florida's air quality rules are available at <a href="https://floridadep.gov/air/air-business-planning/content/current-air-rules">https://floridadep.gov/air/air-business-planning/content/current-air-rules</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), FDEP discussed source
retirement and replacement schedules in section 8.2.2 of the 2021 Plan,
which describes existing and planned source retirements by 2028.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), FDEP explained that
particulate organic matter (POM) is the second most important
contributor to fine particle mass and light extinction on the 20
percent most impaired and 20 percent clearest days in Florida Class I
areas during the baseline period. POM and elemental carbon (a component
of PM<INF>2.5</INF>) are associated with wildfires, prescribed wildland
fires, agricultural burning, and biogenic emissions from vegetation.
Elemental carbon is a relatively minor contributor to visibility
impairment at the Class I areas in Florida as discussed in section
2.4.2 and demonstrated in figures 2-1 through 2-5. Florida has a
certified Smoke Management Plan (SMP) which was most recently updated
in 2013. The Florida Forest Service operates a burn authorization
program that considers the potential for smoke from the burn impacting
smoke sensitive receptors (e.g., airports, roads, hospitals, and urban
areas). The SMP contains provisions to help minimize air pollutant and
regional haze impacts. Florida's SMP may be found in appendix G-4 of
the 2021 Plan for reference only.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), in section 7 of the
2021 Plan, FDEP evaluates the anticipated net effect on visibility due
to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over
the period addressed by the LTS in development of the 2028 RPGs for the
Florida Class I areas. Section 7.2 of the 2021 Plan identifies control
measures included in the VISTAS 2028 emissions inventory. The 2028 RPGs
are identified in section 8 of the 2021 Plan and section 8.2.2 includes
source retirements and replacements for Florida sources. Section I.D of
the TSD to this proposed rulemaking provides a more detailed summary of
the State's assessment of the five additional factors in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv).
e. Interstate Consultation: FDEP consulted with states and RPOs
that identified Florida sources as impacting those states' (or states
within the RPOs') Class I areas. FDEP consulted with the two states
with one or more sources exceeding Florida's PSAT threshold at one or
more of Florida's Class I areas.
i. State/RPOs Requesting Consultation with Florida:
a. MANE-VU's Ask: The following summarizes the conclusions of
consultation related to the MANE-VU Ask \82\ for Florida. Section I.F
of the TSD to this rulemaking provides a more detailed summary of the
State's assessment of Florida's interstate consultation pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ MANE-VU refers to the emission reduction measures
identified in other states as being necessary to make reasonable
progress as ``Asks.'' The MANE-VU Ask to states outside of the MANE-
VU Region is available at <a href="https://otcair.org/manevu/Upload/Publication/Formal%20Actions/MANE-VU%20Inter-Regional%20Ask%20Final%208-25-2017.pdf">https://otcair.org/manevu/Upload/Publication/Formal%20Actions/MANE-VU%20Inter-Regional%20Ask%20Final%208-25-2017.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a letter dated August 25, 2017, MANE-VU requested that 14
states, including Florida, address the ``Asks'' outlined in the letter
on the basis that Florida sources exceeded the visibility impact
threshold set by MANE-VU for at least one Class I area in the MANE-VU
region. On October 16, 2017, MANE-VU initiated consultations with the
states including Florida. Florida

[[Page 105525]]

disagreed with MANE-VU's assertion that Florida's statewide emissions
are impacting visibility at MANE-VU Class I areas. Florida's viewpoints
are reflected in the January 27, 2018, letter from VISTAS to MANE-VU.
To resolve the disagreement, Florida sent a response letter on January
19, 2018, to MANE-VU and noted several disagreements with MANE-VU's
analysis. Florida documented the State's responses and viewpoints with
respect to the MANE-VU Ask in section 10 and appendices F-4 of the 2021
Plan. Florida believes that the State fulfilled the consultation
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) by the State's participation
in a series of five MANE-VU consultation calls held during the period
from October 20, 2017, to March 23, 2018, and by the State's documented
responses to MANE-VU. Thus, FDEP determined that no further action is
required under the RHR to address MANE-VU's requests.
b. Georgia's Request for Consultation with Florida:
In a letter dated November 24, 2020, the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division requested that FDEP share Florida's FFA for its
sources that impact Georgia's Class I areas--Cohutta, Okefenokee, and
Wolf Island. Georgia, through VISTAS analysis, identified five Florida
sources that had greater than one percent sulfate impact on at least
one of Georgia's Class I areas,\83\ including Nutrien, Foley, WestRock-
Fernandina, JEA Northside, and Seminole. As described above, the Haze
Plan includes FFAs or existing effective control analyses for these
five facilities and identifies permit conditions that are incorporated
into Florida's SIP or are proposed for incorporation into the SIP. The
permit conditions proposed for incorporation are identified in the
``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP'' sections of the 2021
Plan, the 2024 Supplement, and the Second 2024 Supplement for
incorporation into the regulatory portion of the Florida SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ None of Florida's sources exceeded the one percent PSAT
nitrate emissions threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florida responded to Georgia in a letter dated December 18, 2020,
acknowledging that the Florida sources identified by Georgia met
Florida's selection criteria and would be evaluated in FFAs.
ii. Other States with Sources Contributing to Regional Haze at
Florida's Class I Areas:
Consultation with other states with sources contributing to
regional haze at Florida's Class I areas is discussed in section 10 and
appendix F of the 2021 Plan. As listed in table 7-26 of the 2021 Plan,
Florida requested an FFA of two sources in two other states because
these sources exceeded the State's sulfate PSAT threshold at one or
more of Florida's Class I areas: Georgia Power Company--Plant Bowen
(Plant Bowen) in Georgia and Tennessee Valley Authority-Shawnee Fossil
Plant (TVA-Shawnee) in Kentucky. At the time of plan submission, FDEP
documented in section 10 of the 2021 Plan that the State had not yet
received a response from Georgia related to Plant Bowen or from
Kentucky for TVA-Shawnee.\84\ Additionally, FDEP consulted with Alabama
on Sanders Lead Co. since that facility had initially ranked greater
than Florida's one percent threshold for PSAT contribution. Alabama
provided additional information in a letter showing that this
facility's recent SO<INF>2</INF> emissions have significantly reduced
from the initial 2028 projections.\85\ In the 2021 plan, FDEP stated
that a scrubber went online in late 2019 and reduced the worst-case
potential emissions from 7,961.1 tpy to approximately 1,400 tpy of
SO<INF>2</INF> which brought Sanders Lead Co. well below the one
percent PSAT. Therefore, Alabama did not select the facility for a
control evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ Regarding Plant Bowen, on August 11, 2022, Georgia
submitted a final regional haze plan for the second planning period
which included an FFA for Plant Bowen that concluded existing
SO<INF>2</INF> measures for Units 1-4 at the facility are necessary
for reasonable progress for the second period. EPA approved
Georgia's regional haze plan on November 21, 2024. See 89 FR 92038.
Kentucky has not yet submitted a final regional haze plan.
\85\ The December 7, 2020, letter from the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management confirming the lowered SO<INF>2</INF>
emission rates can be found in appendix F-1c of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. EPA Evaluation: EPA reviewed Florida's FFAs, determinations of
controls necessary for reasonable progress, and submitted permit
conditions. Based on this review, EPA proposes to determine that
Florida's LTS meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) through
(iv).
a. Source Selection Criteria: EPA proposes to find that Florida has
satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) with respect to
its description of source selection criteria, the outcomes of the
source selection process, and the basis for using the AoI and PSAT
thresholds and other criteria to select sources. Specifically, Florida
provided: appendix B, which details how the State, in conjunction with
VISTAS, created emissions inventories relied upon by the State for its
Haze Plan; appendix C, which provides monitoring and meteorological
data used to support selection of sources; and appendix D, which
provides analyses supporting the AoI approach. In addition, FDEP
summarized in the 2021 Plan the specific data that Florida used for its
source selection analyses, including the AoI and PSAT analyses and
results. FDEP followed EPA's 2019 Guidance recommendations to use 2028
emissions projections to select sources and checked the accuracy of its
2028 estimations by electing to evaluate differences between 2017-2019
emissions and 2028 emissions projections in section 7.6.5 of the 2021
Plan.
EPA proposes to find that Florida captured a reasonable set of in-
state sources contributing to visibility impairment at Class I areas
for the following reasons. AoI and PSAT are acceptable and well-
established methods for selecting sources for a control analysis and
they enable the identification of the sources that have the largest
impacts on visibility at Class I areas in Florida and neighboring
states.\86\ Using a five percent AoI threshold and a one percent PSAT
threshold, the State identified twelve Florida sources for a control
evaluation that are projected to have the highest impact on visibility
at both in-state and out-of-state Class I areas at the end of the
second planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\86\ The State used the AoI process because it identifies the
largest sources with potential visibility impacts to Class I areas
and then used sophisticated photochemical source apportionment
modeling to identify specific sources for control evaluations. See
also 2019 Guidance, pp. 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, statewide SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are expected to
decrease in the second planning period from 2017 levels of 78,173 tpy
of SO<INF>2</INF> to projected 2028 levels of 66,979 tpy of
SO<INF>2</INF> (approximately a 14 percent reduction), and statewide
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are expected to decrease from 2017 levels of
414,369 tpy NO<INF>X</INF> to projected 2028 levels of 265,453 tpy
NO<INF>X</INF> (approximately a 36 percent reduction).\87\ Additional
emissions reductions which have not been reflected in the 2028
emissions projections and 2028 RPGs include the following: CD McIntosh,
which permanently shut down Unit 3 in 2021; Foley, which had
permanently ceased operations by May 2024; \88\ OUC Stanton, which
announced that it will end coal-firing by the end of 2027; and
WestRock--Panama City, which

[[Page 105526]]

permanently ceased operations in June 2022. Specific to second planning
period visibility improvement, visibility conditions in Florida's Class
I areas in 2028 are estimated to improve since the 2014-2018 period by
0.62 deciview (Chassahowitzka), 0.95 deciview (Everglades), and 0.96
deciview (St. Marks). When considered in relation to the amount of
visibility improvement needed to reach natural conditions starting from
the 2014-2018 period, these projected visibility improvements expected
during the second planning period represent approximately the following
amount of progress: 7.40 percent improvement (Chassahowitzka), 13.70
percent improvement (Everglades), and 11.62 percent improvement (St.
Marks).\89\ Based upon a comparison of the most recently available 20
percent most impaired days IMPROVE data (2018-2022) \90\ to the 20
percent most impaired days data from the end of the first planning
period (2014-2018),\91\ in the first four years of the second planning
period Florida's Class I areas have already achieved the following
amount of additional progress towards natural conditions: 4.5 percent
(Chassahowitzka), 8.1 percent (Everglades), and 16.59 percent (St.
Marks).\92\ Also, Florida is appropriately focused on controlling point
source SO<INF>2</INF> emissions based on data showing ammonium sulfate
is the dominant visibility impairing pollutant at the Florida Class I
areas<INF>.</INF>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\87\ Florida's statewide emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> decreased during the period from 2011 to 2017 from
172,701 tpy SO<INF>2</INF> to 78,173 tpy SO<INF>2</INF> and
decreased from 608,366 to 414,369 tpy NO<INF>X</INF>. See tables 4-
1, 13-12, and 13-13 of the 2021 Plan.
\88\ In appendix C-2 of the 2024 Supplement, Foley stated in a
letter dated May 22, 2024, that the mill has ceased production
operations as a pulp and paper mill.
\89\ See visibility data for the 20 percent most impaired days
data from table 8-1 and 2-6 of the 2021 Plan. Percentage of progress
toward natural conditions = [((2014-2018 IMPROVE data)-(2028 RPG))/
((2014-2018 IMPROVE data)-(Natural visibility conditions))] x 100.
Example calculation for Chassahowitzka [(17.41-16.79)/(17.41-9.03)]
x 100 = 7.4 percent.
\90\ The 2018-2022 IMPROVE data for the 20 percent most impaired
days was obtained from under the header ``Means for Impairment
Metric:''. The IMPROVE data includes visibility monitoring data for
each Class I area. This data was filtered for each Class I area,
listed as ``CHAS1'' (Chassahowitzka), ``EVER1'' (Everglades), and
``SAMA1'' (St. Marks), respectively, (in column ``A'', titled
``site''). Then data was filtered for the years 2018 through 2022
(using column ``B'' titled ``year''). These data points were then
filtered for the 20 percent most impaired days, indicated by ``90''
(in column ``C'' titled ``impairment_Group''). The resulting data
points for each Florida Class I area within the ``haze_dv'' column
``AK'', corresponding to each of the five years, were averaged to
determine the 20 percent most impaired days for the 2018-2022 five-
year period. The 2018-2022 IMPROVE data for Florida's Class I areas
are: 17.03 deciviews (Chassahowitzka), 14.37 deciviews (Everglades),
and 16.02 deciviews (St. Marks).
\91\ The 2014-2018 IMPROVE data was provided by Florida in table
2-6 of the 2021 Plan.
\92\ Percentage of progress toward natural conditions = [((2014-
2018 IMPROVE data)-(2018-2022 IMPROVE data))/((2014-2018 IMPROVE
data)-(Natural visibility conditions))] x100. Example calculation
for Chassahowitzka: [(17.41-17.03)/(17.41-9.03)] x 100 = 4.5
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Consideration of the Four CAA Factors:
i. FFAs: EPA proposes to find that FDEP's reasonable progress
determinations and conclusions for the selected sources are reasonable
and that Florida submissions satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) as discussed below.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\93\ See also section I.B of the TSD for additional details
regarding Florida's FFAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Foley: Regarding Foley, EPA proposes to find FDEP's
determinations of measures that are necessary for reasonable progress
are reasonable as described below.
The State evaluated available and technically feasible
SO<INF>2</INF> controls based on, where applicable, estimated values of
capital costs, annualized costs, and cost per ton of emission
reductions, consistent with recommendations in the Cost Manual.
For the No. 1 Power Boiler, the State evaluated adding a wet
scrubber with an estimated cost of $13,547/ton, and DSI with an
estimated cost of $21,727/ton and determined that these controls are
not cost effective.
FDEP determined that existing measures are necessary for reasonable
progress. Specifically, the No. 1 Power Boiler shall fire only natural
gas except for periods of natural gas curtailment, pipeline
disruptions, or physical mill problems that otherwise prevent the
firing of natural gas in this unit. For future additions of No. 6 fuel
oil to the common tank, the maximum sulfur content shall be 1.02
percent by weight with compliance determined by maintaining records of
fuel deliveries, analytical methods, and results of analysis. Tall oil
is no longer an authorized fuel.
For the No. 1 Power Boiler, EPA proposes to find that FDEP's
determination to impose limitations for existing measures is reasonable
and necessary for reasonable progress.
For No. 1 Bark Boiler, as the unit was already equipped with a wet
venturi scrubber, Florida considered operating scenarios to achieve
additional SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions, and determined that
running the wet venturi scrubber with requirements on minimum pH and
flow rate whenever a LVHC-NCG or oil is fired is cost-effective and
necessary for reasonable progress, resulting in a 51 percent reduction
in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions annually. EPA proposes to find that FDEP's
determination to require more frequent operation of the wet venturi
scrubber for the No. 1 Bark Boiler is reasonable and that this measure
is necessary for reasonable progress. Additionally, EPA proposes to
find that FDEP's determination to impose the low-sulfur fuel
restrictions for the No. 1 Bark Boiler that are similar to the
restrictions proposed for No. 1 Power Boiler (except the No. 1 Bark
Boiler is permitted to burn wood in addition to natural gas as the
primary fuel type) is reasonable and that these measures are necessary
for reasonable progress.
For the recovery boilers, the State evaluated wet scrubbers with
estimated costs of $7,779/ton for Recovery Furnace No. 2; $5,197/ton
for Recovery Furnace No. 3; and $6,587/ton for Recovery Furnace No. 4.
Florida determined that these measures were not cost effective, but
proposed existing measures as necessary for reasonable progress. EPA
proposes to find that FDEP's determination to impose requirements for
the following existing measures--black liquor as the primary fuel;
natural gas and liquid fuels as supplements to recovery operations; a
maximum sulfur content of 1.02 percent for purchased no. 6 fuel oil;
and a SO<INF>2</INF> emissions cap of 3,200 tons per consecutive 12
operating months as measured by CEMS--is reasonable and that these
measures are necessary for reasonable progress.
Therefore, EPA proposes to incorporate into the Florida SIP the
permit conditions from permit number 1230001-121-AC that are identified
in the ``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP'' section of the
Second 2024 Supplement.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\94\ See pp. 8-14 under ``Appendix A'' of ``Materials to be
Incorporated into the SIP'' contained within filename ``SIP 2024-01
Part II SIP Regional Haze Amendment Supplement October 28 2024.pdf''
included with the Second 2024 Supplement which is in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. JEA Northside: Regarding JEA Northside Unit 3,\95\ EPA proposes
to find that FDEP's determinations regarding applicable controls for
this source at JEA Northside are reasonable. The State evaluated
available and technically feasible SO<INF>2</INF> controls that were
based on, where applicable, estimated values of capital costs,
annualized costs, and cost per ton of emission reductions, consistent
with recommendations in the Cost Manual. For NGS Unit 3, EPA proposes
to find FDEP's determination that switching to lower sulfur No. 6 fuel
oil at $3,053/ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed is necessary for reasonable
progress is reasonable. Thus, EPA proposes to incorporate into the
Florida SIP the permit conditions from

[[Page 105527]]

permit number 0310045-057-AC that are listed under ``Materials to be
Incorporated into the SIP'' section of the 2021 Plan.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\95\ The associated permits documenting proposed conditions and
limits in the SIP may be found in appendix G-3 of the 2021 Plan.
\96\ See p. 13 under ``JEA Northside Unit 3 . . .'' under
``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP'' in filename ``Final
SIP 2021-01 Regional Haze.pdf'' included with the 2021 Plan which is
in the docket for this rulemaking. These permit conditions are also
summarized in section 7.8.1.1.5 of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. WestRock-Fernandina: EPA proposes to find FDEP's determinations
regarding applicable controls for the sources at WestRock-Fernandina
are reasonable. The State evaluated available and technically feasible
SO<INF>2</INF> controls based on, where applicable, estimated values of
capital costs, annualized costs, and cost per ton of emission
reductions, consistent with recommendations in the Cost Manual.
Regarding the No. 7 Power Boiler, FDEP evaluated removing coal as a
fuel ($7,374/ton), reducing coal usage (cost savings $1,868/ton), FGD
without and with a stack liner ($5,641/ton and $6,028/ton,
respectively), DSI ($8,776/ton), and SDA ($16,398/ton). EPA proposes to
find FDEP's determination for the No. 7 Power Boiler that reducing coal
usage to 125 tpd is cost-effective is reasonable, and proposes to find
that reducing coal usage is necessary for reasonable progress for the
No. 7 Power Boiler.\97\ Therefore, EPA proposes to incorporate into the
Florida SIP the permit conditions from permit number 0890003-072-AC
that are listed under the ``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP''
section of the 2021 Plan; \98\ and the permit condition from permit
number 0890003-074-AC and listed in appendix A-1 of the 2024
Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\97\ Existing measures for the No. 7 Power Boiler can be found
in section 7.8.2.1.5, Summary of Findings for WestRock-Fernandina
Beach No.7 Power Boiler (EU15), of the 2021 Plan and section
7.8.2.5.5, Summary of Findings for No.7 Power Boiler, of the 2024
Supplement.
\98\ See pp. 15-16 under ``WestRock Fernandina Beach Mill . .
.'' under ``Materials to be Incorporated into the SIP'' in filename
``Final SIP 2021-01 Regional Haze.pdf'' included with the 2021 Plan
which is in the docket for this rulemaking. These permit conditions
are also summarized in section 7.8.2.1.5 of the 2021 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the No. 5 Power Boiler, FDEP evaluated a wet scrubber
system without and with a stack liner ($285,615/ton and $298,499/ton,
respectively) and DSI ($277,093/ton). For the Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery
Boilers, FDEP evaluated a wet scrubber system at $282,375/ton and
$169,425/ton, respectively. EPA proposes to find FDEP's determination
that existing SO<INF>2</INF> measures at the No. 5 Power Boiler and the
Nos. 4 and 5 Recovery Boilers previously approved into the SIP \99\ are
necessary for reasonable progress is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\99\ See 82 FR 30749 (July 3, 2017); 40 CFR 52.520(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Existing, Effective Control Demonstrations:
EPA proposes to find that certain existing SO<INF>2</INF> measures
at the affected units of the eight facilities evaluated for existing,
effective control demonstrations are necessary for reasonable progress,
and thus, EPA proposes to include these measures in the SIP.
EPA proposes to find that FDEP's proposed adoption of the 0.20 lb/
MMBtu MATS limit for the fossil fuel steam generating Unit 4 and Unit 5
at Duke-Crystal River and the permit requirements that allow the citrus
combined cycle station Units 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B to combust only
pipeline natural gas is reasonable. The 2019 Guidance provides several
scenarios in which EPA believes it may be reasonable for a state not to
select a particular source for further analysis. One such scenario is
applicable to Duke-Crystal River--a coal-fired EGU that has add-on FGD
and meets the applicable alternative SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit of
0.2 lb/MMBtu in the MATS rule. The 2019 Guidance states that it is
unlikely that an analysis of control measures for a source already
equipped with a scrubber and meeting a 0.20 lb/MMBtu limit or having
fuel combustion units that is restricted to combust only pipeline
natural gas per enforceable requirements would conclude that even more
stringent control of SO<INF>2</INF> is necessary to make reasonable
progress. See 2019 Guidance at 23.
EPA evaluated FGD control efficiency data at Units 4 and 5 at Duke-
Crystal River and calculated that the existing FGD systems routinely
achieve 96.2-98.9 percent yearly average SO<INF>2</INF> removal
efficiencies based on 2017-2023 data during periods when coal is one of
the fuel sources consumed, with a seven-year average (2017-2023)
SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiencies of 97.0 and 96.8 percent,
respectively.\100\ Therefore, for Duke-Crystal River's Units 4 and 5,
EPA proposes to find it reasonable that an FFA would likely result in
the conclusion that no further SO<INF>2</INF> emissions controls
(including FGD upgrades) are necessary for reasonable progress.
Therefore, EPA proposes to find that FDEP's determination that these
existing SO<INF>2</INF> measures are necessary for reasonable progress
and must be adopted into the SIP is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\100\ See Florida EGU scrubber efficiency data file that is
included in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA proposes to find as reasonable FDEP's determination that an
SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu in combination with the MATS-
based SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu at CFB Boilers 1
and 2 at JEA Northside demonstrate existing, effective SO<INF>2</INF>
measures for these units. Regarding FGD control efficiencies at CFB
Boilers 1 and 2 JEA Northside, EPA evaluated data from 2017-2023 and
calculated that the existing FGD systems routinely achieve 94.8 to 96.6
percent yearly average SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiencies when
consuming coal, having seven-year average (2017-2023) SO<INF>2</INF>
removal efficiencies of 95.8 percent.\101\ Therefore, EPA proposes to
find FDEP's determination that an FFA would likely result in the
conclusion that no further SO<INF>2</INF> emissions controls (including
FGD upgrades) is reasonable and that these measures are necessary for
reasonable progress. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the proposed
emissions limits are necessary for reasonable progress and must be
adopted into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\101\ See Florida EGU scrubber efficiency data file that is
included in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA proposes to find as reasonable FDEP's determination that
Mosaic-Bartow's SAPs 4, 5, and 6 have existing, effective controls.
Currently, these units use dual absorption process with cesium catalyst
to control SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and restrictions in the SIP to
limit the three SAPs at the facility to four lbs/ton of 100 percent
sulfuric acid produced, which is consistent with controls identified in
EPA's RBLC. In addition, the facility has a three-unit cap at 1,100
lbs/hour on a 24-hour block average and had recent upgrades to reduce
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Thus, EPA proposes to find FDEP's
determination that SAPs 4, 5, and 6 are effectively controlled
reasonable, and that an FFA would likely result in the conclusion that
no further SO<INF>2</INF> emissions controls these measures are
necessary for reasonable progress.
EPA proposes to find that FDEP's determination is reasonable that
existing SO<INF>2</INF> measures at Mosaic-New Wales' SAPs 1-5, which
use dual absorption process with cesium-promoted catalyst, constitute
existing, effective SO<INF>2</INF> controls. The combination of the
dual absorption design and the cesium-promoted catalysts represents
BACT for sulfur-burning, non-single absorption column SAPs in
accordance with the RBLC. Current restrictions in the SIP limit the
Nos. 1-3 SAPs to 3.5 lbs/ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid produced on a
24-hr rolling average and four lbs/ton of sulfuric acid produced on a
three-hour rolling average, while SAPs 4 and

[[Page 105528]]

5 are each required to meet a limit of 4.0 lbs/ton of sulfuric acid
produced. In addition, the facility has a five-unit cap at 1,090 lbs/
hour on a 24-hour block average. Thus, EPA proposes to find FDEP's
determination reasonable that SAPs 1-5 have effective SO<INF>2</INF>
control measures for Mosaic-New Wales, and that an FFA would likely
result in the conclusion that no further SO<INF>2</INF> emissions
controls are necessary for reasonable progress.
EPA proposes to find that FDEP's determination is reasonable that
existing SO<INF>2</INF> measures at Mosaic-South Pierce's SAPs 10 and
11, which use dual absorption process with cesium-promoted catalyst,
constitute existing effective SO<INF>2</INF> controls. The combination
of the dual absorption design and the cesium-promoted catalysts
represents BACT for sulfur-burning, non-single absorption column SAPs
in accordance with the RBLC. Current restrictions in the SIP impose a
750 lbs/hour SO<INF>2</INF> limit on a 24-hour block average. Thus, EPA
proposes to find FDEP's determination reasonable that Mosaic-South
Pierce's SAPs 10 and 11 have effective SO<INF>2</INF> control measures,
and that an FFA would likely result in the conclusion that no further
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions controls these measures are necessary for
reasonable progress.
EPA proposes to find that FDEP's determination that Nutrien's SAPs
E and F have existing effective controls for SO<INF>2</INF> is
reasonable. Nutrien's SAPs E and F currently use dual absorption
process with cesium catalyst. Current restrictions in the SIP impose
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits at 2.6 lbs/ton, three-hour rolling
average; 2.3 lbs/ton, 365-day rolling average, which applies during
periods of shutdown and startup; and 840 lbs/hour on a 24-hour block
averaging period. The facility elected to complete upgrades on SAP E
and SAP F, which included changing out and augmenting the converter
catalyst in the SAPs to meet the limits. EPA proposes to find that the
State adequately demonstrates that Nutrien's SAPs E and F are
effectively controlled, and that an FFA would likely result in the
conclusion that no further SO<INF>2</INF> emissions controls are
necessary for reasonable.
EPA proposes to find that FDEP's determination that TECO-Big Bend
has existing effective controls for SO<INF>2</INF> for Unit 4 is
reasonable. TECO-Big Bend's SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are limited by the
MATS limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu which FDEP is proposing to incorporate into
the SIP. Regarding FGD control efficiencies at Unit 4 at TECO-Big Bend,
EPA evaluated data from 2017-2023 for Unit 4 and calculated that the
existing FGD system routinely achieves 92.2-97.1 percent yearly average
SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiencies during periods when coal is one of
the fuel sources consumed, with a seven-year average (2017-2023)
SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiency of 95.8 percent.\102\ As mentioned
above, Unit 3 at TECO-Big Bend was permanently retired from electric
generation service on April 26, 2023, and therefore, Florida's
demonstration of existing, effective controls is no longer relevant and
no further action is required by EPA.\103\ Therefore, EPA proposes to
find FDEP's determination that TECO-Big Bend Unit 4 is effectively
controlled is reasonable, and that an FFA would likely result in the
conclusion that no further SO<INF>2</INF> emissions controls (including
FGD upgrades) are necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\102\ See Florida EGU scrubber efficiency data file that is
included in the docket for this proposed action.
\103\ The Retired Unit Exemption Form for TECO Big Bend Unit 3
is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly, EPA proposes to find that FDEP's determination that
Seminole has existing effective controls for SO<INF>2</INF> for steam
electric generators Nos. 1 and 2 is reasonable. The MATS SO<INF>2</INF>
limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu applies to the Seminole facility, and Florida
identified this emission limit for incorporation into the SIP.
Regarding FGD control efficiencies at Unit Nos. 1 and 2 at Seminole
during periods when coal is one of the fuel sources consumed, EPA
evaluated data from 2017-2023 and calculated that the existing FGD
systems routinely achieve 96.5-97.3 percent yearly average
SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiencies, with a seven-year average (2017-
2023) SO<INF>2</INF> removal efficiency of 96.8 percent.\104\
Therefore, EPA proposes to find FDEP determination reasonable that
Seminole Unit Nos. 1 and 2 are effectively controlled, and that an FFA
would likely result in the conclusion that no further SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions controls (including FGD upgrades) are necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\104\ See Florida EGU scrubber efficiency data file that is
included in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Documentation of Technical Basis: With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii), EPA proposes to find that Florida adequately
documented cost, engineering, emissions, modeling, and monitoring
information to determine the measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress for the following reasons. With regard to emissions
information, as required by the RHR, the State included the required
years of the most recent triennial emissions inventory (2017) and the
most recent annual SO<INF>2</INF> emissions data for specific sources
(2019) available at the time of the development of the 2021 Plan. FDEP
provided actual emissions inventory data for 2011, 2014, and 2017, and
emissions projections for 2028 in its Haze Plan. Specifically, table 4-
1 provides a 2011 emissions inventory for Florida which includes the
visibility impairing pollutants and carbon monoxide. Emissions from the
2014 and 2017 NEIs are provided in tables 13-11, 13-12, and 13-13 for
PM<INF>2.5,</INF> NO<INF>X</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>, respectively. For
all Florida facilities with emissions of either SO<INF>2</INF> or
NO<INF>X</INF> greater than 100 tpy in 2017, table 7-28
(SO<INF>2</INF>) includes actual emissions for 2017, 2018, and 2019,
and 2028 (remodeled) projected emissions. With regard to cost and
engineering information, the State provided the underlying cost
calculations associated with the cost summaries in section 7.8 of the
Haze Plan for Foley, JEA Northside, and WestRock-Fernandina, and the
proposed FFAs in appendix G provide engineering analyses evaluating
potential new control measures. With regard to monitoring data, the
State provided IMPROVE data for the modeling base period plus baseline,
current (2014-2018), and natural conditions for all VISTAS Class I
areas with more detailed data provided for the Florida Class I areas.
With regard to modeling information, the State documented the modeling
input and outputs and assumptions in the Haze Plan and the results of
the modeling related to RPGs and PSAT source impacts at Class I areas.
d. Assessment of Five Additional Factors in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv):
EPA proposes to find that Florida has satisfied the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) because FDEP considered each of the five
additional factors, discussed the measures the State has in place to
address each factor (or discussed why such measures are not needed),
and where relevant, explained how each factor informed FDEP's and
VISTAS' technical analyses for the second planning period.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), EPA proposes to find
that FDEP adequately addressed the requirement to assess emission
reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including
measures to address RAVI, through the State's emissions inventory work
for the base year of 2011 as projected out to 2028.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), EPA proposes to find
that Florida adequately addressed this requirement to evaluate measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities by describing a
state regulation that addresses control of fugitive airborne dust and
considering

[[Page 105529]]

the minor impact fine soils have on visibility.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), EPA proposes to find
that Florida adequately addressed source retirement and replacement
schedules by summarizing existing and planned source retirements in
section 8.2.2 in the 2021 Plan.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), EPA proposes to find
that Florida adequately addressed the requirement to consider the
State's basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire used for
agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and smoke
management programs. The State describes its SMP to mitigate
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions associated with prescribed burning and
highlights its burn authorization program, operated by Florida's Forest
Service, that considers the potential impact of smoke at sensitive
receptors.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), EPA proposes to find
that Florida assessed the anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the
second planning period in development of the 2028 RPGs for the Florida
Class I areas. FDEP also identifies control measures included in the
VISTAS 2028 emissions inventory and source retirements and
replacements. FDEP used the 2011 base year emissions inventory to
project emissions from various source sectors to 2028, the end of the
second planning period. FDEP, through VISTAS, completed CAMx modeling
to estimate visibility impairment in 2028 based on projected 2028
emissions from the 2011 base year inventory and using IMPROVE
monitoring data for 2009-2013. As mentioned previously, atmospheric
ammonium sulfate is the largest contributor to visibility impairment in
Class I areas in the Southeast. VISTAS emission sensitivity modeling
determined that the most effective way to reduce ammonium sulfate is to
reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGUs and non-utility industrial
point sources.
e. Interstate Consultation: Based on the consultation documentation
described in section III.C.2.e of this document and section I.F. of the
TSD to this proposed rulemaking, EPA proposes to find that Florida has
met the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) to consult with
those states with Class I areas that Florida emissions impact for
visibility and to consult with those states whose sources are impacting
Florida's Class I areas.\105\ Additionally, Florida appropriately
responded to and documented requests from MANE-VU to address upwind
emissions from sources in VISTAS states. Lastly, FDEP completed the
requested emissions control analyses for the five facilities and
provided the State's analyses and conclusions of these analyses in
section 7.6 and 7.8 of the 2021 Plan and 2024 Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\105\ Specifically, EPA proposes to find that FDEP appropriately
responded to and documented requests from Georgia to complete FFAs
or existing, effective control demonstrations for the SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions from Foley, JEA Northside, Nutrien, Seminole, and
WestRock-Fernandina in Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA also proposes to find that FDEP appropriately consulted with
other states, namely Kentucky, Georgia, and Alabama regarding specific
sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment at Class I areas in Florida in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii). EPA proposes to conclude that Florida appropriately
documented its interstate consultations regarding Florida sources
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at Class
I areas outside of the State and sources in other states reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at Florida's Class I
areas.\106\
-------------------------------------------------

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on December 27, 2024.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.