[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3681-3691]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1519]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037; FRL-9622-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the Minnesota State Implementation
Plan addressing regional haze for the first implementation period.
Minnesota submitted its regional haze plan on December 30, 2009. A
supplemental submission was made on January 5, 2012. The Minnesota
regional haze plan addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) and Regional Haze Rule
(RHR) requirements to remedy any existing and prevent future
anthropogenic visibility impairment at mandatory Class I areas. We are
proposing fully to approve the Minnesota regional haze plan if
Minnesota submits its proposed Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) emission limits for taconite facilities in fully adopted form
prior to our final action under this proposal, or to conditionally
approve the plan if Minnesota has not done so.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0037, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-0037. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as

copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Minnesota's regional haze plan?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities located across a broad geographic
area and that emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates,
nitrates, organic particles, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and its
precursors--sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases ammonia (NH3), and
volatile organic compound (VOCs). Fine particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate matter. Aerosol PM2.5
impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility
impairment reduces the clarity and distance one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition
and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range, the distance at which an
object is barely discernable, in many Class I areas \1\ in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers. That is about one-half to two-
thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. In the Eastern and Midwestern Class I areas of the United
States, the average visual range is generally less than 30 kilometers,
or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of the Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a Federal Land Manager. 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we
use the term ``Class I area,'' we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal
area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's RHR

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources known as, ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (RAVI). 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the
first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze, the RHR,
on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). The RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in
section III. The requirement to submit a regional haze state
implementation plan (SIP) applies to all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the State of New Mexico under
the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and
various federal agencies. Pollution affecting the air quality in Class
I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds of
kilometers. Therefore, effectively addressing the problem of visibility
impairment in Class I areas

means that states need to develop coordinated strategies that take into
account the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air
quality in another state.
    EPA has encouraged the states and tribes to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective because the pollutants that lead
to regional haze can originate from sources located across broad
geographic areas. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were
developed to address regional haze and related issues. The RPOs first
evaluated technical information to better understand how their states
and tribes impact Class I areas across the country and then pursued the
development of regional strategies to reduce PM2.5 emissions
and other pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The RPO for Minnesota is the Central Regional Air Planning
Association (CENRAP). CENRAP's membership includes the states of
Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
Oklahoma, and Texas, along with tribes and federal land management
agencies (FLMs).
    Minnesota also worked with the Midwest RPO (MRPO) on technical
analyses of regional haze and visibility in the Midwest. The MRPO
member states are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

D. The Relationship of the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Transport
Rule to Regional Haze Requirements

    The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) required some states to reduce
emissions of SO2 and NOX that contribute to
violations of the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone. 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR
established emissions budgets for SO2 and NOX. A
2006 EPA determination (71 FR 60612, October 13, 2006) establishes that
states opting to participate in the CAIR program need not require BART
for SO2 and NOX at BART-eligible electric
generating units (EGUs). Many states relied on CAIR as an alternative
to BART for SO2 and NOX for its subject EGUs.
    On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision to vacate
and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) in their entirety. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836
(D.C. Cir. 2008). However, the Court issued an order on December 23,
2008, remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR
FIPs in response to EPA's petition for rehearing. The Court held that,
among other things, EPA had not properly addressed possible errors in
analysis supporting the inclusion of Minnesota in CAIR for
PM2.5. The Court left the EPA CAIR rule and CAIR SIPs and
FIPs in place until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the
court's opinion. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. In a
November 3, 2009 (74 FR 56721) final rule, EPA administratively stayed
the effectiveness of CAIR and the CAIR FIP with respect to Minnesota
and sources in Minnesota only.
    EPA subsequently promulgated the Transport Rule, also known as the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, to replace CAIR. The final Transport
Rule was published on August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208). Minnesota is
covered by the Transport Rule.
    In the Transport Rule, EPA noted that it had not conducted a
technical analysis at that time to determine whether compliance with
the Transport Rule would satisfy the requirements of the RHR addressing
alternatives to BART. EPA has since conducted such an analysis and
proposed on December 30, 2011, that compliance with the Transport Rule
will provide for greater reasonable progress toward improving
visibility than source-specific BART controls for EGUs located in those
states covered by the Transport Rule. 76 FR 82219. On that same day,
the DC Circuit issued an order addressing the status of the Transport
Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking
a stay of the Transport Rule pending judicial review. In that order,
the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule pending the court's
resolutions of the petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer
Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court
also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to administer the CAIR
in the interim until the court rules on the petitions for review of the
Transport Rule.
    On January 5, 2012, Minnesota submitted a draft supplement to its
regional haze plan, including a statement that it wishes to rely on the
Transport Rule to satisfy BART requirements for SO2 and
NOX for EGUs.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas, the reasonable progress goal (RPG). Section 169A of the CAA and
EPA's implementing regulations require states to establish LTS for
making reasonable progress toward meeting the RPG. Plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require those sources to install BART reducing visibility impairment.
The specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further
detail below.

A. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric or
unit for expressing visibility impairment. This visibility metric
expresses uniform proportional changes in haziness in terms of common
increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from
pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in deciview
is determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light
extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a
logarithm function. The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking
progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because
each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility
perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in
visibility at one deciview.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs, defining baseline,
current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility.
The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure ``reasonable
progress'' toward the national goal of preventing and remedying
visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by anthropogenic air
pollution. The national goal is a return to natural conditions such
that anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair
visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437) and as part
of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP is submitted and at the
progress review every five years, midway through each 10-year
implementation period. The RHR requires states with Class I areas
(Class I states) to determine the degree of impairment in deciviews for
the average of the 20 percent (%) least impaired (best) and 20% most
impaired (worst) visibility days over a specified time period at each
of its Class I areas. Each

state must also develop an estimate of natural visibility conditions
for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national goal. Natural
visibility is determined by estimating the natural concentrations of
pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then calculating total
light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to
states regarding how to calculate baseline, natural, and current
visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA's Guidance for
Estimating Natural Visibility conditions under the Regional Haze Rule,
September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance'') and Guidance for Tracking
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003
located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)) (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress
Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIP, due December 17, 2007, the
``baseline visibility conditions'' are the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20%
best days and 20% worst days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004.
Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are required to
calculate the average degree of visibility impairment for each Class I
area, based on the average of annual values over the five-year period.
The comparison of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural
visibility conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to
attain natural visibility, while comparisons of future conditions
against baseline conditions will indicate the amount of progress made.
In general, the 2000 to 2004 baseline period is considered the time
from which improvement in visibility is measured.

B. Determination of RPGs

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress toward achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two distinct RPGs, one for the best
days and one for the worst days for every Class I area for each
approximately 10-year implementation period. The RHR does not mandate
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward
achieving natural visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, a state with
a mandatory Class I area (Class I state) must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the worst days over the approximately 10-
year period of the SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
best days.
    Class I states have significant discretion in establishing RPGs,
but are required to consider the following factors established in
section 169A of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A):
(1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3)
the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and
(4) the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. The
states must demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered
when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program,
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2,
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(``uniform rate of progress'' or ``glide path'') and the emissions
reduction needed to achieve that rate of progress over the
approximately 10-year period of the SIP. In setting RPGs, each Class I
state must also consult with potentially contributing states, i.e.,
those states that may affect visibility impairment at the Class I
state's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

C. BART

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain older large stationary sources to address
visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, CAA section
169A(b)(2)(A) requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the
natural visibility goal including a requirement that certain categories
of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977
procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. The set
of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject to BART is listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(7). The state can require source-specific BART
controls, but it also has the flexibility to adopt an alternative such
as a trading program only if the alternate provides greater progress
toward improving visibility than BART.
    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (BART Guidelines) to assist states in determining which of
their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in
determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source. A
state must use the approach in the BART Guidelines in making a BART
determination for a fossil fuel-fired EGU with total generating
capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. States are encouraged, but not
required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations
for other sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 emissions impair visibility
in Class I areas.
    States may select an exemption threshold value for their BART
modeling under the BART Guidelines, below which a BART-eligible source
may be considered to have a small enough contribution to visibility
impairment in any Class I area to warrant being exempted from the BART
requirement. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. The
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 dv.
Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual source's impact.
    The state must identify potential BART sources in its SIP,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document its
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires the state to consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining
useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may

reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. The
BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years after the date of EPA
approval of the state's regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR,
general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for the BART controls on the source.
    The RHR also allows states to implement an alternative program in
lieu of BART if desired so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater progress toward the national visibility
goal than implementing BART controls. EPA made such a demonstration for
CAIR under regulations issued in 2005 revising the regional haze
program. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide that
states participating in the CAIR trading program under 40 CFR part 96
pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the
CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not
require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain
BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, so states were
still required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs
subject to BART for that pollutant.
    As described above in section II, the DC Circuit found CAIR to be
inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. The rule was remanded to
EPA but left in place until the Agency replaced it. EPA replaced CAIR
with the Transport Rule in August 2011.
    On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading
programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable
progress towards the national goal than would be obtained by
implementing BART for SO2 and NOX for BART-
subject EGUs in the area subject to the Transport Rule 76 FR 82219.
Based on that proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to
allow states to meet the requirements of an alternative program in lieu
of BART by participation in the trading programs under the Transport
Rule. The Transport Rule is not applicable to emissions of PM, so
states would still be required to conduct a BART analysis for PM
emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. EPA has not
taken final action on that rule.

D. LTS

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable
RPGs. The LTS must include enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
RPGs for all Class I areas within or affected by emissions from the
state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be required to address interstate
visibility issues sufficiently.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS. The seven factors are: (1) Emission reductions
due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to
address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to
achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5)
smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management
purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these
purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control
measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the
period addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI LTS

    EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c), which is a part of the RHR, regarding
the LTS for RAVI. The RAVI plan must provide for a periodic review and
SIP revision not less frequently than every three years until the date
of submission of the state's first plan addressing regional haze
visibility impairment in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). The
state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze on or before this
date. It must also submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first
regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs and periodic progress
reports evaluating progress towards RPGs must be submitted consistent
with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set
forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic
review of a state's LTS must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision and
report on both RAVI and regional haze impairment. In cases involving
sources newly certified as RAVI sources, 40 CFR 51.306(c) provides for
the State to revise its plan as appropriate within 3 years of receipt
of the RAVI certification.

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation
in the IMPROVE network, meaning that the state reviews and uses
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy must also
provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not
sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met. The monitoring
strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP and it must be
reviewed every five years.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state

with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment
at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, to
be submitted in electronic format, if available;
     A statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area. The inventory must include emissions for a
baseline year, emissions for the most recent year with available data,
and future projected emissions. A state must also make a commitment to
update the inventory periodically; and
     Other elements including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018 with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.

G. Consultation With States and FLMs

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for in person consultation at least 60 days prior to
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Minnesota's regional haze plan?

    Minnesota submitted its regional haze plan on December 30, 2009,
which included revisions to the Minnesota SIP to address regional haze.
Minnesota also supplemented its regional haze plan by submitting
additional material on January 5, 2012.

A. Class I Areas

    States are required to address regional haze affecting Class I
areas within a state and in Class I areas outside the state that may be
affected by the state's emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(d). Minnesota has two
Class I areas, Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area (Boundary Waters)
and Voyageurs National Park (Voyageurs), within the state. Minnesota is
responsible for developing a regional haze plan that addresses these
Class I areas and for consulting with states that affect its areas.
    Minnesota reviewed technical analyses conducted by CENRAP and other
RPOs to determine what Class I areas outside the state are affected by
Minnesota emission sources. Minnesota's modeling shows that its
emissions contribute to visibility impairment at Isle Royale National
Park in Michigan. Minnesota emission sources were also found by the
CENRAP analysis to contribute to visibility impairment at Wichita
Mountains Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma. Minnesota has met the
requirement to identify affected Class I areas.

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural Conditions

    The RHR requires Class I states to calculate the baseline, current,
and natural conditions for their Class I areas.
    Natural background visibility is estimated by calculating the
expected light extinction using estimates of natural concentrations of
pollutants adjusted by an estimate of humidity. The IMPROVE algorithm
is used to make this calculation. EPA allows states to use an
alternative approach to calculating natural conditions. One alternative
approach is to use the refined IMPROVE algorithm, which is what
Minnesota chose to do. Minnesota determined that natural visibility
conditions for Boundary Waters are best represented by an average of
11.6 dv for the 20% most impaired days and 3.4 dv for the 20% least
impaired days. Natural conditions for Voyageurs were predicted to be
12.2 dv on the most impaired days and 4.3 dv on the least impaired
days.
    The baseline visibility conditions are the same as the current
conditions for this initial regional haze implementation period.
Minnesota used IMPROVE monitoring data to calculate the baseline
visibility conditions at its Class I areas. Data from 2000-2004 was
used to calculate the impairment on the 20% best and 20% worst
visibility days at Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. The refined IMPROVE
equation is used to calculate the baseline conditions.
    Minnesota calculated the baseline visibility impairment at Boundary
Waters as 19.9 dv on the 20% most impaired days and 6.4 dv on the 20%
least impaired days. The state found the baseline visibility impairment
at Voyageurs to be 19.5 dv on the 20% worst visibility days and 7.1 dv
on the cleanest 20% of days.
    Minnesota compared the baseline or current to the natural
visibility impairment. This determines the visibility improvement
needed over the 60-year period (2004 to 2064) to reach natural
conditions. An annual rate can simply be calculated by dividing the
needed improvement by 60 years. The state can use the annual visibility
improvement rate for the most impaired days to set its uniform rate of
progress (URP) targets for each implementation period.
    For Boundary Waters, the difference between the baseline, 19.9 dv,
and the natural, 11.6 dv, on the 20% most impaired days is 8.3 dv,
which yields an annual rate of 0.14 dv. The difference on the 20% least
impaired days between the 6.4 dv baseline and 3.4 dv natural conditions
is 3.0 dv. The differences at Voyageurs are 7.3 dv on the most impaired
days (19.5-12.2 dv) and 2.8 dv (7.1-4.3 dv) on the least impaired days.
The annual rate of visibility improvement needed for the 20% most
impaired days is 0.12 dv per year to achieve the URP. Minnesota then
calculated the 2018 URP goals of 17.9 dv for Boundary Waters and 17.8
dv for Voyageurs. These goals for the 20% most impaired days were
calculated by multiplying the annual rate of improvement by the 14
years since the 2004 baseline. There is to be no degradation of the
visibility on 20% best days, so no calculation is needed as the 2018
goals match the baseline. EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance states
that the URP is not a presumptive target for the RPG. Class I states
can set the RPG at the URP or it can set the RPG at greater or less
visibility impairment.

C. RPGs

    Minnesota teamed with MRPO and Michigan to establish RPGs for the
four Northern Class I areas including

Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. The Northern Class I areas consultation
group worked together to determine the RPGs by first identifying and
prioritizing sources that contribute to the worst visibility days and
to establish the relative visibility impairment affects. The group
determined that the priority emission sources are SO2 point
sources, NOX from both point and mobile sources, and ammonia
from agricultural operations. Minnesota identified regional
SO2 emissions from EGUs as a key contributor to visibility
impairment in Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. Minnesota also identified
NOX and SO2 emissions from sources in the six
counties of Northeastern Minnesota as important contributors. The
counties of Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, and Saint Louis
comprise the Northeast Minnesota area.
    The second step of the process was to identify control options for
the priority sources. The group identified existing control measures
including CAIR, BART, Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards,
on-road mobile source programs, and non-road mobile source programs.
MRPO examined different potential control scenarios, two control levels
for EGUs and two control levels for industrial, commercial, and
institutional (ICI) boilers. Minnesota determined that most of its
priority sources, including EGUs and indurating furnaces at taconite
facilities, are subject to BART. Other priority sources will be subject
to emissions control to comply with the Northeast Minnesota plan (see
section IV.E).
    The third step of the process is to assess existing control
programs. In its initial plan development, Minnesota considered
reductions from CAIR. Subsequently, CAIR was suspended in Minnesota,
but then EPA promulgated the Transport Rule to regulate EGU emissions
in Minnesota again. Therefore, Minnesota's plan continues to include
EGU emission reductions that once again may be considered mandated by a
regional trading program. The state is also accounting for emission
reductions from voluntary projects being undertaken by EGUs due to
Minnesota statue 216B.1692, which allows the recovery of the costs of
environmental projects. Minnesota further considered the emission
reductions from implementing BART controls on its sources and sources
in other states. Minnesota took into account the reductions anticipated
from other federal controls such as Tier II mobile source standards,
heavy-duty diesel engine standards, low sulfur fuel, and non-road
mobile source control programs.
    The fourth step is to determine which control options may be
reasonable. The Northern Class I areas group further considered the
MRPO EGU scenario with 0.15 lb SO2/MMBTU and 0.10 lb
NOX/MMBTU limits by 2013 and the ICI boiler option with a
40% reduction in SO2 emissions and a 60% reduction in
NOX emissions by 2013. Minnesota used a CENRAP emissions-to-
distance analysis. CENRAP took source emissions in tons divided by the
distance to an affected Class I area in kilometers. When this ratio was
greater than or equal to five, potential controls were evaluated. This
analysis identified some Minnesota sources with potential for cost
effective NOX reductions. However, Minnesota noted that the
identified sources are already implementing controls.
    The final step of the process to determine the RPGs was to compare
the control strategies to the URP. Minnesota included all control
measures believed to be reasonable and compared the resulting
visibility improvement to the URP. Minnesota set the RPGs for Boundary
Waters at 18.6 dv for the worst 20% of days and 6.4 dv for the best 20%
of days in 2018. This annual 0.09 dv improvement rate would lead to
achieving natural conditions on the worst 20% of days in 2093. The 2018
RPG for Boundary Waters provides less improvement than the linear
progress benchmark of 17.9 dv. Minnesota determined that the RPGs for
Voyageurs are 18.9 dv for the worst 20% of days and 7.1 dv for the best
20% of days in 2018. Projecting this 0.04 dv per year improvement into
the future yields Voyageurs reaching natural conditions on the worst
20% of days in 2177. As was the case for Boundary Waters, the 2018 RPG
for Voyageurs provides less improvement than the linear progress
benchmark of 17.8 dv. Minnesota considers the RPGs to be the result of
the minimally acceptable visibility improvement. Minnesota detailed
potential controls in Chapter 10 of its regional haze plan.
    Minnesota consulted with other states to determine which Class I
areas are impaired by emissions from its sources. The consultation also
allowed Minnesota to determine that in addition to contributions from
its own sources, emissions from sources in Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa,
Missouri, and North Dakota contribute to visibility impairment at
Minnesota's Class I areas, Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. Minnesota
identified the contributing states from MPRO's 2018 PSAT analysis.
Other analyses from CENRAP and MRPO support the contribution
determination. The pollutants and sources affecting Boundary Waters and
Voyageurs are detailed in Chapter 10 of the Minnesota regional haze
plan.
    Minnesota consulted with the FLMs during the development of its
regional haze plan. The FLMs participated in CENRAP and on Northern
Class I areas group calls, which allowed for FLM comment about
technical issues and control strategies. Minnesota also consulted
directly with the FLMs during plan development about its visibility
impairment at Class I areas assessment, setting the RPGs, and the
development of strategies to address visibility impairment.
    The FLMs participated at stakeholder meetings in January and May
2007. Consultation with the FLMs continued as Minnesota prepared its
BART determinations. Further consultation occurred in the summer of
2007 while Minnesota cultivated a strategy to address visibility
impairment resulting from emission sources in close proximity to the
Class I areas. A draft of the regional haze plan was discussed at a
September 20 and 21, 2007, meeting at Voyageurs. Minnesota sent the
FLMs its regional haze plan on February 4, 2008. The public hearing on
the regional haze plan was held on April 10, 2008. Thus, the state met
the provisions of the RHR to provide the FLMs at least 60 days to
review the plan prior to the public hearing. Minnesota will continue to
consult with the FLMs on regional haze in the future.
    Minnesota actively participated in CENRAP meetings and conference
calls. Minnesota also participated in some MRPO meetings and conference
calls even though it is not a MRPO member. Beyond the technical
analyses produced by the RPOs, Minnesota was able to consult with
states and tribes throughout the region because of its RPO
participation. Minnesota and Michigan coordinated the Northern Class I
areas conference calls, which allowed the states to consult with the
states contributing to visibility impairment at Boundary Waters,
Voyageurs, and two Class I areas in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and North Dakota participated on the
Northern Class I areas calls and thus, consulted with Minnesota.
Michigan and Minnesota also consulted with each other. The Northern
Class I areas consultation group also included a number of other
governmental entities. Participating tribes included the Leech Lake
Band of Ojibwe, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Fond du Lac Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa, Grand Portage Band

of Chippewa, Upper Sioux, Lower Sioux, and Huron Potawatomi. EPA,
National Park Service, and Forest Service also participated in the
consultation calls along the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The
Northern Class I areas consultation group began in 2004 by working on
air quality planning. Later the group discussed the SIP requirements of
the regional haze program including sharing technical information on
regular conference calls from July 2006 to February 2008. In September
2007, Minnesota sent a letter to the states participating in the
Northern Class I areas group as these states contribute to visibility
impairment in Boundary Waters or Voyageurs. This letter formally
acknowledged the consultation occurring in the group. Details of
consultations including the Northern Class I areas process are included
in Chapter 3 of the Minnesota regional haze plan.
    In addition to demonstrating the effect of emissions from other
states on its Class I areas, Minnesota must also show that it will
obtain its share of emission reductions from its sources. Thus,
Minnesota's emission reduction obligations will allow the affected
Class I areas to meet the RPGs. Minnesota performed technical analyses
and modeling to analyze its contribution to visibility impairment. The
state concluded that sulfates, nitrates, and organic carbon are the
main contributors to visibility impairment. Minnesota thus decided to
focus emission reduction efforts on SO2 and NOX,
as it found the organic particles tend to come from natural sources
such as wildfires in the Upper Midwest. Minnesota considered the
emission reductions expected from existing, voluntary projects, and
additional control measures that will improve visibility through 2018,
when the first RPGs apply. The existing and voluntary control measures
considered are similar to what the state considered in setting its
RPGs. The additional controls measures were considered by the Northern
Class I areas group and are reasonably likely to be implemented.
Minnesota believes that the control measures it considered are
reasonable and that it will achieve its share of emission reductions to
attain the RPGs at affected Class I areas. This includes obtaining its
share of emission reduction for Boundary Waters and Voyageurs in
addition to Class I areas outside the state. EPA concludes that
Minnesota is implementing a reasonable progress plan that includes the
measures that meet the criteria as reasonable measures.

D. BART

    Minnesota conducted a BART analysis using the criteria in the BART
Guidance at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and Appendix Y to identify all of the
BART-eligible sources, assess whether the BART-eligible sources are
subject to BART, and determine the BART controls. Minnesota initially
identified 25 facilities with BART-eligible sources consisting of 11
EGUs, 2 petroleum refineries, 6 taconite ore processing plants, 2
sugar-processing facilities, 2 kraft pulp mills, an iron and steel
mill, and a secondary metal production facility. Minnesota performed
source-specific analyses with the CALPUFF model to determine which
units are subject to BART. The state selected a 98th percentile 0.5 dv
contribution threshold, consistent with EPA's suggested threshold,
because no conglomeration of sources existed to warrant a more
stringent threshold and because Minnesota concluded that 0.5 dv was an
appropriate threshold for defining significant impact for BART
purposes. Minnesota found that 11 facilities have units subject to
BART. Five EGUs and six taconite ore processing facilities have subject
to BART units. The EGUs with subject to BART units include Minnesota
Power Taconite Harbor and Boswell facilities, Northshore Mining's
Silver Bay, Rochester Public Utilities' Silver Lake, and Xcel Energy's
Sherburne County (Sherco). The taconite ore processing facilities with
subject to BART units are US Steel-Keewatin Taconite, Hibbing Taconite
Company, US Steel-Minntac, United Taconite, ArcelorMittal, and
Northshore Mining's Silver Bay.
    Next, Minnesota determined the appropriate BART emission limits
using the five-step BART determination process. The taconite facilities
are unique, as only eight facilities exist nationally with six in
northern Minnesota and two in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The taconite
plants are over 30 years old. The lack of new plants or retrofit
projects gave Minnesota little knowledge of what emission limits are
feasible and the cost effectiveness of potential control technologies,
particularly for NOX control.
    Minnesota determined BART for NOX emissions from
taconite pellet furnaces as employing good combustion practices with
process modifications such as low-NOX burners, ported kilns,
and fuel-efficient furnace design improvements. Minnesota required
emission monitoring at the taconite facilities to learn what
NOX emission rates can be achieved by these controls. Now,
the state has used that data to set the NOX emission rates
for its taconite facilities.
    The facility specific BART determinations resulted in Minnesota
selecting the following NOX emission limits as satisfying
BART. All NOX emission limits for the taconite facilities
are based on a 30-day rolling average. The ArcelorMittal indurating
furnace will use low-NOX burners and a furnace energy-
efficiency project to reduce emissions to 1018 lb/hr. For Hibbing
Taconite, the furnace energy-efficiency projects completed in 2005 and
2006 to produce a NOX BART limit of 447.4 lb/hr on the Line
1 Pelletizing Furnace, 571.7 lb/hr on the Line 2 furnace, and 338.3 lb/
hr on the Line 3 furnace. Keewatin Taconite's Phase II Pelletizing
Furnace will use fuel blending along with the existing controls to
reduce NOX emissions to 12.35 tons per day. US Steel-Minntac
will use fuel blending on its pellet furnace Line 3 to achieve an
emissions rate of 7.85 tons per day. Minntac will use low-
NOX burners and fuel blending on Lines 4, 5, 6, and 7. The
resulting NOX emission limits are 9.85 tons per day on Line
4, 9.46 tons per day on Line 5, 7.14 tons per day on Line 6, and 5.51
tons per day on Line 7. Northshore Silver Bay requires good combustion
practices to limit NOX emissions from Furnace 11 and Furnace
12 to 115.5 lb/hr for each furnace, while Process Boilers 1
and 2 are limited to 0.17 lb/MMBTU. Finally, United Taconite
is required to operate with good combustion practices to obtain a
NOX emission limit of 4.5 tons per day on Line 1 and 10.1
tons per day on Line 2.
    Minnesota determined that BART for PM emissions is complying with
the taconite MACT for covered units. The taconite MACT establishes a
PM10 emission limit of 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic
foot for the pellet furnaces at all six taconite facilities. The
taconite facilities already have PM controls to comply with the MACT
standards. Northshore Silver Bay has wet-wall electrostatic
precipitators, while the other five facilities operate wet scrubbers
for PM control. Minnesota concluded that additional PM control would
result in nominal visibility improvement, so complying with the
taconite MACT represents BART control for PM.
    Minnesota determined that the wet scrubbers installed for PM
control could be used to provide BART control of SO2
emissions at most of the taconite facilities, too. As with
NOX emission control, Minnesota found it necessary to
monitor SO2 emissions to be able to select the appropriate
SO2 emission limits for some of the facilities.

    Minnesota set the SO2 emission limit for the indurating
furnace at ArcelorMittal at 0.165 lb/long ton (LT) of taconite pellets
fired on a rolling 30-day average when combusting natural gas. The
SO2 emission limits for Hibbing Taconite's Line 1, 2, and 3
Pelletizing Furnaces each were set at 0.207 lb/LT as a 30-day rolling
average. Minnesota determined that Keewatin Taconite is obtaining
adequate SO2 control with its wet scrubbers. Thus, after
reviewing the monitoring data, the State set an SO2 emission
limit at 2.71 tons per day on a 30-day rolling average for the
facility's Phase II Pelletizing Furnace. US Steel-Minntac operates five
agglomerator lines--Lines 3 to 7. Minnesota set the SO2 BART
emission limit for Line 3 at 1.28 tons per day, Line 4 at 1.10 tons per
day, and Line 5 at 1.10 tons per day. Lines 6 and 7 operate with ported
kilns and combust coal in making fluxed pellets, so Minnesota needed
additional monitoring data to set the SO2 emission limits
for Lines 6 and 7 at 1.47 and 1.61 tons per day respectively. The
SO2 emission limits for US Steel-Minntac are for a rolling
30-day average. For the indurating furnaces at Northshore Silver Bay,
Minnesota set a BART limit for SO2 emissions at 0.0651 lb/LT
on a 30-day rolling average. United Taconite has two indurating
furnaces, Lines 1 and 2. Minnesota determined that optimizing the wet
scrubber for SO2 removal is BART control for Line 1 and set
the SO2 emission limit at 106.3 tons as a 30-day rolling
sum. Minnesota determined the SO2 emission limit for Line 2
is 197 tons as a 30-day rolling sum. United Taconite can meet the BART
emission limit by either modifying its fuel blends, through operation
of additional control equipment, or a combination of additional control
with a lower sulfur fuel blend. Line 2 currently uses a blend of coal,
petroleum coke, and natural gas. The BART analysis showed the
installation and operation of a polishing scrubber as a viable BART
control.
    Minnesota has provided some of the preceding BART emission limits
on January 5, 2012 in proposed Administrative Orders. EPA cannot
approve BART emission limits that are not federally enforceable. Thus,
EPA cannot approve all of Minnesota's BART emission limits until the
limits are final in an enforceable form. Nevertheless, Minnesota has
requested that EPA conduct ``parallel processing,'' in which EPA
proposes the action it would take were the State to adopt its draft
administrative orders in final form. Accordingly, EPA is proposing
that, provided Minnesota submits all of its BART emission limits in
final Administrative Orders by the time EPA conducts final rulemaking,
EPA will approve these administrative orders as satisfying BART for
these sources.
    Minnesota initially did not perform BART determinations for the
five subject to BART EGUs. This was because Minnesota was in the CAIR
region and the state planned to meet its BART obligations through its
participation in CAIR. CAIR was expected to control NOX and
SO2 emissions from power plants, so Minnesota assessed the
visibility impairment from PM for the subject to BART EGUs. Minnesota
modeled each EGU and found the visibility impairment to be minor with
the maximum impact of 0.16 dv from Northshore Silver Bay. Minnesota did
not set PM emission limits for BART given this minor impact on
visibility.
    Minnesota prepared BART determinations for NOX and
SO2 emission control from its subject EGUs after CAIR was
suspended for Minnesota. The BART determinations for the five subject
to BART EGUs were included in the December 30, 2009, submission.
    EPA has analyzed the benefits of the Transport Rule in relation to
the benefits of BART on EGUs that are subject to the Transport Rule. On
December 30, 2011 (76 FR 82219), EPA proposed a rule finding that the
Transport Rule is more beneficial in mitigating visibility impairment
than application of BART to the affected EGUs on a source-specific
basis. If the proposal is finalized, the Transport Rule may be
considered to satisfy the requirement for BART for EGUs in Minnesota
for SO2 and NOX. Minnesota requested on January
5, 2012 to use Transport Rule participation to satisfy BART for its
EGUs. As set forth in the proposed rule, Transport Rule region states
are able to use participation in the Transport Rule program as an
alternative to implementing source specific BART on each subject EGU.
EPA proposes to approve Minnesota's reliance on the already promulgated
Transport Rule FIP for EGU sources in Minnesota as an alternative to
BART for SO2 and NOX for its EGUs. Therefore, EPA
is proposing that if EPA finalizes the rule finding that the Transport
Rule satisfies the BART requirement for EGUs for SO2 and
NOX in Minnesota and elsewhere, then the combination of the
Minnesota submission including BART for its taconite facilities and the
Transport Rule will satisfy applicable requirements for BART.
    A RAVI petition was submitted to the FLMs on September 3, 2009. The
US Department of Interior certified that a portion of the visibility
impairment in Isle Royale National Park and Voyageurs National Park are
caused by emissions from Sherco. Interior certified the petition on
October 21, 2009. The RAVI rules at 40 CFR 51.302(c) require the
determination of emission limits representing BART for certified
facilities. A BART determination under the RAVI is similar to, but
independent from the BART determination made under the RHR. EPA views
Minnesota's submittal as addressing regional haze as regulated under 40
CFR 51.308 and not RAVI as regulated under 40 CFR 51.302 to 51.306.
Therefore, this proposed rule only addresses satisfaction of regional
haze requirements and does not address whether Minnesota's plan
addresses requirements that apply as a result of the certification of
Sherco as a RAVI source. EPA will act on RAVI BART in a separate
notice.

E. LTS

    Under Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308(d), states'
regional haze programs must include a LTS for making reasonable
progress toward meeting the national visibility goal. Section
51.308(d)(3) requires that Minnesota consult with the affected states
in order to develop a coordinated emission management strategy.
Minnesota must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the affected Class I areas. This includes
Boundary Waters, Voyageurs, and Class I areas in other states that are
affected by Minnesota sources. As described in section III.E., the LTS
is the compilation of all control measures Minnesota will use to meet
applicable RPGs. The LTS must include enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to
achieve the RPGs for all affected Class I areas.
    At 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), the RHR identifies seven factors that a
state must consider in developing its LTS: (A) Emission reductions due
to ongoing programs, (B) measures to mitigate impact from construction,
(C) emission limits to achieve the RPG, (D) replacement and retirement
of sources, (E) smoke management techniques, (F) federally enforceable
emission limits and control measures, and (G) the net effect on
visibility due to projected emission changes over the LTS period.
Minnesota considered the seven factors in developing its LTS.
    Minnesota considered these ongoing and expected programs in
developing its LTS: CAIR; voluntary EGU projects due to Minnesota
statue 216B.1692; BART;

Tier II mobile source standards; heavy-duty diesel engine standards;
low sulfur fuel; non-road mobile source control programs; and measures
taken to attain the NAAQS.
    When Minnesota's participation in the CAIR program was suspended,
Minnesota began a process of working with its BART-eligible EGU sources
to make BART determinations and put in place BART emission limits in
the form of source-specific permits, taking into consideration the
emission control projects that these sources had initiated in
anticipation of being subject to CAIR and voluntary emission reduction
projects that had been encouraged by Minnesota's 216B.1692 statute that
provides rate recovery for investments in pollution control. After EPA
promulgated the Transport Rule and made known its plans to propose a
rule that would allow Minnesota to rely on the Transport Rule to
satisfy the BART requirements for SO2 and NOX for
its EGUs, Minnesota changed course and is now requesting EPA approval
for such reliance, as stated above, rather than seeking EPA approval of
its source-specific SO2 and NOX emission limits
as BART for BART-eligible EGUs. Nevertheless, Minnesota expects
reductions from Minnesota Power--Boswell, Minnesota Power--Laskin,
Minnesota Power--Taconite Harbor, Ottertail Power--Hoot Lake, Rochester
Public Utilities--Silver Lake, Xcel Energy--Allen S. King, Xcel
Energy--High Bridge, Xcel Energy--Riverside, Xcel Energy--Sherburne
County because permits requiring emission reductions have been issued
for these sources as a result of either the BART determination process
or the voluntary emission reduction program. These reductions are part
of Minnesota's LTS.
    Other states that contribute to visibility impairment at Boundary
Waters and Voyageurs must also reduce emissions from their BART
sources. Minnesota incorporated the expected emission reductions due to
BART in other states into its modeling. Additional emission reductions
are expected from federal programs and from contributing states to
attain the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS. Minnesota is in attainment
of these NAAQS.
    Minnesota has addressed the requirement to consider measures to
mitigate the impacts of construction activities through the general and
transportation conformity measures that are included in the Minnesota
SIP. Minnesota also has Minnesota Rule 7011.0150 that requires measures
to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne included in its
SIP.
    The state is required to investigate if additional reasonable
control strategies are available to help meet the visibility goal. As a
result of its analysis of potential controls, Minnesota developed the
Northeast Minnesota plan for emission reductions. The Northeastern
portion of Minnesota contains the two Class I areas and a number of
industrial sources. The sources include taconite facilities that mine
and process a variety iron ore, which is an industry that is expected
to expand in the future. The plan gives large sources in Carlton, Cook,
Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties region-wide
emission reduction targets for 2018. Large sources are point sources in
the region that emitted more than 100 TPY of either SO2 or
NOX in 2002, the base line year. A list of these large
sources is in Chapter 10 of the Minnesota regional haze plan. Newer
sources that have a potential to emit more than 100 TPY of either
pollutant are also included in the Northeast Minnesota plan. Minnesota
focused on the emissions it can control. Minnesota divided the light
extinction at Voyageurs into the difference pollutants based on their
contribution. The state then removed the influence of natural
pollutants and those beyond its control. Minnesota determined that it
needed to control SO2 and NOX in the region and
that a 28% reduction is needed to meet the URP. Thus, the 2018 target
was set at a 30% reduction in combined SO2 and
NOX emission from Northeast Minnesota by 2018 with an
intermediate target of a 20% reduction by 2012. The combined
SO2 and NOX emissions were 95,562 TPY in 2002, so
a 30% reduction makes the 2018 goal 66,894 TPY combined. Note that the
Northeast Minnesota plan does not mandate emission reductions, but sets
a region-wide emissions goal for the state to consider when setting
emission limits to regional sources.
    Minnesota also included requirements in the Administrative Orders
for the taconite facilities to demonstrate attainment for recently
enacted NAAQS for SO2 and NOX. Each facility must
provide Minnesota with modeling demonstrating compliance with the one-
hour SO2 and NOX standards, the emission limits
that will result in compliance, the controls or work practices needed
to meet the emission limits, and an implementation schedule. The
taconite facilities are to comply with the emission limits by June 30,
2017. Minnesota expects the requirements of the taconite facilities to
result in indentifying emission control technologies that work well on
their facilities.
    The visibility impacts of new major sources will be mitigated using
the existing New Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) programs. The PSD program requires sources to
install stringent emission controls. New and modified sources need to
consider the potential affect on visibility in Class I areas under the
NSR and PSD programs. The region-wide emission targets in the Northeast
Minnesota plan will aid the state in considering visibility impairment.
    Minnesota followed the requirement to consider source retirement
and replacement schedules in developing the RPGs for its Class I areas.
Minnesota has also developed a Smoke Management Plan that EPA certified
October 27, 2004. The Minnesota Smoke Management Plan allows the state
to meet the obligation to consider smoke management during the LTS
development. Agricultural and silvicultural burning under the Minnesota
Smoke Management Plan will limit the affects of the smoke on air
quality including on visibility. A properly managed fire under the
right meteorological conditions will help to protect public safety and
will prevent deterioration of air quality.
    Minnesota must also make sure that the emission limits and control
measures it is using to meet the RPGs are federally enforceable.
Minnesota included its state rules in the regional haze plan. It also
included Administrative Orders and permits. Other rules that Minnesota
is relying on are already approved into the Minnesota SIP. EPA believes
that control measures and emission limits will be federally enforceable
upon final approval of the Minnesota regional haze plan.

F. Monitoring Strategy

    The RHR requires a monitoring strategy for measuring, speciation,
and reporting on visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I areas in the state. Minnesota participates in the
IMPROVE network. IMPROVE monitors operate in both Boundary Waters and
Voyageurs. There are also IMPROVE protocol sites at Blue Mounds and
Great River Bluffs in the southern portion of Minnesota. IMPROVE
protocol sites follow the same monitoring protocol as IMPROVE site, but
located outside mandatory Class I areas. Minnesota commits to reporting
visibility data annually for its two Class I area. There are 10 IMPROVE
sites and 15 IMPROVE protocol sites within the CENRAP region.
    Minnesota also operates a monitoring network that provides data to
analyze air quality problems including regional

haze. The monitoring network includes Federal Reference Method,
continuous, and speciation monitors. The speciation monitors that
gather data on fine particulate composition includes the IMPROVE
monitors along with two additional speciation sites in Minneapolis and
Rochester. EPA finds that Minnesota's regional haze plan meets the
monitoring requirements for the RHR and that Minnesota's network of
monitoring sites is satisfactory to measure air quality in its Class I
areas and assess its contribution to regional haze.

G. Comments

    Minnesota offered the public an opportunity to comment on its
proposed regional haze plan. Minnesota gave notice of a comment period
on February 25, 2008, that lasted until May 16, 2008. Minnesota held at
public meeting on April 10, 2008. An addition comment period was given
from July 20, 2009, to September 3, 2009 for revised portions of the
plan.
    Minnesota included the original comment letters in its plan. The
state also provided it responses to the comments. Minnesota made
revisions to its proposed plans following the initial comment period.
The revised portions of the plan included source-specific BART for EGUs
(an element that Minnesota has now indicated that it will replace with
reliance on the Transport Rule as an EPA-approved alternative to EGU
BART), BART for taconite facilities, and its LTS. Minnesota provided
the second comment period to receive public comment on the revised
plan. Minnesota is taking public comment from December 19, 2011 to
February 3, 2012. Minnesota will also take public comment at the March
27, 2012 Citizens' Board meeting. Minnesota has satisfied the
requirements from 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V to provide evidence that
it gave public notice, took comment, and that it compiled and responded
to comments.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing action on a regional haze plan that Minnesota
submitted on December 30, 2009, and supplemented on January 5, 2012.
EPA is proposing to approve Minnesota's State Implementation Plan
addressing regional haze for the first implementation period, provided
it adopts and submits administrative orders consistent with its recent
proposal of administrative orders. Full approval of the BART emission
limits for the five EGUs is contingent on EPA's finalization of the
rule, proposed on December 30, 2011, finding that the Transport Rule
provides greater visibility improvement that implementing BART.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: January 17, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-1519 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 169 (Monday, August 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53838-53840]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19063]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM
and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that
a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having
in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used
by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: The date of January 15, 2021 has been established for the FIRM
and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov by the date indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Jefferson County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1946
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Arvada.........................  Engineering Division, 8101
                                          Ralston Road, Arvada, CO
                                          80002.
Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson        Jefferson County Planning and
 County.                                  Zoning Division, 100 Jefferson
                                          County Parkway, Suite 3550,
                                          Golden, CO 80419.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Larimer County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1950
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Berthoud.......................  Town Hall, 807 Mountain Avenue,
                                          Berthoud, CO 80513.
Town of Johnstown......................  Town Hall, 450 South Parish
                                          Avenue, Johnstown, CO 80534.
Unincorporated Areas of Larimer County.  Larimer County Courthouse
                                          Offices Building, 200 West Oak
                                          Street, Suite 3000, Fort
                                          Collins, CO 80521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citrus County, Florida and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1950
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Crystal River..................  Planning and Zoning Department,
                                          123 Northwest Highway 19,
                                          Crystal River, FL 34428.
Unincorporated Areas of Citrus County..  Citrus County Building
                                          Division, 3600 West Sovereign
                                          Path, Suite 111, Lecanto, FL
                                          34461.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Hernando County, Florida and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1950
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Hernando County  Hernando County Zoning
                                          Division, 789 Providence
                                          Boulevard,
                                         Brooksville, FL 34601.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Story County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1940
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Ames...........................  City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue,
                                          Ames, IA 50010.
City of Cambridge......................  City Hall, 225 Water Street,
                                          Cambridge, IA 50046.
City of Collins........................  City Hall, 212 Main Street,
                                          Collins, IA 50055.
City of Gilbert........................  City Hall, 105 Southeast 2nd
                                          Street, Gilbert, IA 50105.
City of Huxley.........................  City Hall, 515 North Main
                                          Avenue, Huxley, IA 50124.
City of Maxwell........................  City Hall, 107 Main Street,
                                          Maxwell, IA 50161.
City of McCallsburg....................  City Hall, 425 Main Street,
                                          McCallsburg, IA 50154.
City of Nevada.........................  City Hall, 1209 6th Street,
                                          Nevada, IA 50201.
City of Roland.........................  City Hall, 208 North Main
                                          Street, Roland, IA 50236.
City of Slater.........................  City Hall, 101 Story Street,
                                          Slater, IA 50244.
City of Story City.....................  City Hall, 504 Broad Street,
                                          Story City, IA 50248.
City of Zearing........................  City Hall, 105 West Main
                                          Street, Zearing, IA 50278.
Unincorporated Areas of Story County...  Story County Administration
                                          Building, 900 6th Street,
                                          Nevada, IA 50201.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (All Jurisdictions)
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1944
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Plaquemines      Plaquemines Parish Permits,
 Parish.                                  Planning and Zoning
                                          Department, 333 F. Edward
                                          Hebert Boulevard, Building
                                          300, Belle Chasse, LA 70037.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Cleveland County, Oklahoma and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1921
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Norman.........................  City Hall, Public Works
                                          Department, 201 West Gray
                                          Street, Building A, Norman, OK
                                          73069.
City of Oklahoma City..................  Public Works Department, 420
                                          West Main Street, Suite 700,
                                          Oklahoma City, OK 73102.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Union County, South Dakota and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1936
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Alcester.......................  City Hall, 106 West 2nd Street,
                                          Alcester, SD 57001.
City of Beresford......................  City Hall, 101 North 3rd
                                          Street, Beresford, SD 57004.
City of Elk Point......................  City Hall, 106 West Pleasant
                                          Street, Elk Point, SD 57025.
City of North Sioux City...............  City Hall, 504 River Drive,
                                          North Sioux City, SD 57049.
Unincorporated Areas of Union County...  Union County Courthouse, 209
                                          East Main Street, Suite 100,
                                          Elk Point, SD 57025.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Dickson County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1905
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Charlotte......................  City Hall, 22 Court Square,
                                          Charlotte, TN 37036.
Town of Slayden........................  Mayor's Office, 701 Schmittou
                                          Street, Slayden, TN 37165.
Unincorporated Areas of Dickson County.  Dickson County Courthouse, 4
                                          Court Square, Charlotte, TN
                                          37036.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Houston County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1905
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Erin...........................  City Hall, 15 Hill Street,
                                          Erin, TN 37061.

City of Tennessee Ridge................  City Hall, 2300 South Main
                                          Street, Tennessee Ridge, TN
                                          37178.
Unincorporated Areas of Houston County.  Houston County Courthouse, 4725
                                          East Main Street, Erin, TN
                                          37061.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Montgomery County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1905
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Clarksville....................  Regional Planning Commission,
                                          329 Main Street, Clarksville,
                                          TN 37040.
Unincorporated Areas of Montgomery       Montgomery County Building and
 County.                                  Codes Department, 350 Pageant
                                          Lane, Suite 309, Clarksville,
                                          TN 37040.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Stewart County, Tennessee and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1905
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Cumberland City................  City Hall, 121 Main Street,
                                          Cumberland City, TN 37050.
Town of Dover..........................  City Hall, 625 Donelson
                                          Parkway, Dover, TN 37058.
Unincorporated Areas of Stewart County.  Stewart County Mayor's Office,
                                          226 Lakeview Drive, Dover, TN
                                          37058.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Matagorda County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
                 Docket No.: FEMA-B-1311 and FEMA-B-1941
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bay City.......................  City Hall, 1901 5th Street, Bay
                                          City, TX 77414.
City of Palacios.......................  City Hall, 311 Henderson
                                          Avenue, Palacios, TX 77465.
Unincorporated Areas of Matagorda        Matagorda County Office
 County.                                  Building, 2200 7th Street, 1st
                                          Floor, Bay City, TX 77414.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-19063 Filed 8-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P