Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 33095 

the authority of a person identified in 

paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 385.10 to read as follows: 

§ 385.10 Scope. 

This subpart establishes rates and 

terms of royalty payments for making 

and distributing physical phonorecords, 

Permanent Downloads, Ringtones, and 

Music Bundles, in accordance with the 

provisions of 17 U.S.C. 115. 

■ 4. Revise § 385.11 paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 385.11 Royalty rates. 

(a) Physical phonorecords and 

Permanent Downloads. 

(1) 2023 Rate. For the year 2023, for 

every physical phonorecord and 

Permanent Download the Licensee 

makes and distributes or authorizes to 

be made and distributed, the royalty rate 

payable for each work embodied in the 

phonorecord or Permanent Download 

shall be either 12.0 cents or 2.31 cents 

per minute of playing time or fraction 

thereof, whichever amount is larger. 

(2) Annual rate adjustment. The 

Copyright Royalty Judges shall adjust 

the royalty rates in paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section each year to reflect any 

changes occurring in the cost of living 

as determined by the most recent 

Consumer Price Index for All Urban 

Consumers (U.S. City Average, all items) 

(CPI–U) published by the Secretary of 

Labor before December 1 of the 

preceding year. The calculation of the 

rate for each year shall be cumulative 

based on a calculation of the percentage 

increase in the CPI–U from the CPI–U 

published in November, 2022 (the Base 

Rate) and shall be made according to the 

following formulas: for the per-work 

rate, (1 + (Cy¥Base Rate)/Base Rate) × 

12¢, rounded to the nearest tenth of a 

cent; for the per-minute rate, (1 + 

(Cy¥Base Rate)/Base Rate) × 2.31¢, 

rounded to the nearest hundredth of a 

cent; where Cy is the CPI–U published 

by the Secretary of Labor before 

December 1 of the preceding year. The 

Judges shall publish notice of the 

adjusted fees in the Federal Register at 

least 25 days before January 1. The 

adjusted fees shall be effective on 

January 1. 

* * * * * 

Dated: May 24, 2022. 

Suzanne M. Barnett, 

Chief Copyright Royalty Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11521 Filed 5–31–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2021–0536; FRL–9802–01– 

R5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Michigan; Federal Implementation Plan 

for the Detroit Sulfur Dioxide 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for attaining 

the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for the Detroit SO2

nonattainment area. The FIP includes an 

attainment demonstration and other 

elements required under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). In addition to an attainment 

demonstration, the FIP addresses the 

requirement for meeting reasonable 

further progress (RFP) toward 

attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably 

available control measures and 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACM/RACT), enforceable emission 

limitations and control measures to 

provide for NAAQS attainment, and 

contingency measures. This action 

supplements a prior action which found 

that Michigan had satisfied emission 

inventory (EI) and nonattainment new 

source review (NSR) requirements for 

this area but had not met requirements 

for the elements addressed in the 

proposed FIP. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the FIP provides for 

attainment of the 2010 primary SO2

NAAQS in the Detroit SO2

nonattainment area and meets the other 

applicable requirements under the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 18, 2022. 

Virtual Public Hearing. In order to 

comply with current Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) 

recommendations, as well as state and 

local orders, for social distancing to 

limit the spread of COVID–19, EPA is 

holding a virtual public hearing to 

provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views, or 

arguments concerning the proposal. 

EPA will hold a virtual public hearing 

to solicit comments on June 16, 2022. 

The hearing will convene at 3:00 p.m. 

Eastern Time (ET) and will conclude at 

9:00 p.m. ET, or 15 minutes after the last 

pre-registered presenter in attendance 

has presented if there are no additional 

presenters. EPA will announce further 

details, including information on how to 

register for the virtual public hearing, on 

the virtual public hearing website at 

https://www.epa.gov/mi/detroit-so2- 

federal-implementation-plan. 

EPA will begin pre-registering 

presenters and attendees for the hearing 

upon publication of this document in 

the Federal Register. To pre-register to 

attend or present at the virtual public 

hearing, please use the online 

registration form available at https://

www.epa.gov/mi/detroit-so2-federalimplementation-plan or contact Abigail 

Teener at 312–353–7314 or by email at 

DetroitFIP@epa.gov. The last day to preregister to present at the hearing will be 

June 13, 2022. On June 13, 2022, EPA 

will post a general agenda for the 

hearing that will list pre-registered 

presenters in approximate order at 

https://www.epa.gov/mi/detroit-so2- 

federal-implementation-plan. 

Additionally, requests to present will be 

taken on the day of the hearing as time 

allows. 

EPA will make every effort to follow 

the schedule as closely as possible on 

the day of the hearing; however, please 

plan for the hearing to run either ahead 

of schedule or behind schedule. Each 

commenter will have 5 minutes to 

provide oral testimony. EPA encourages 

commenters to provide EPA with a copy 

of their oral testimony electronically by 

including it in the registration form or 

emailing it to DetroitFIP@epa.gov. EPA 

may ask clarifying questions during the 

oral presentations but will not respond 

to the presentations at that time. Written 

statements and supporting information 

submitted during the comment period 

will be considered with the same weight 

as oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the virtual 

public hearing. A transcript of the 

virtual public hearing, as well as copies 

of oral presentations submitted to EPA, 

will be included in the docket for this 

action. 

EPA is asking all hearing attendees to 

pre-register, even those who do not 

intend to present. EPA will send 

information on how to join the public 

hearing to pre-registered attendees and 

presenters. 

Please note that any updates made to 

any aspect of the hearing will be posted 

online at https://www.epa.gov/mi/ 

detroit-so2-federal-implementationplan. While EPA expects the hearing to 

go forward as set forth above, please 

monitor our website or contact Abigail 

Teener at 312–353–7314 or DetroitFIP@

epa.gov to determine if there are any 

updates. EPA does not intend to publish 

a document in the Federal Register 

announcing updates. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33096 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

If you require the services of a 

translator or a special accommodation 

such as audio description/closed 

captioning, please pre-register for the 

hearing with Abigail Teener at 312– 

353–7314 or DetroitFIP@epa.gov and 

describe your needs by June 8, 2022. 

EPA may not be able to arrange 

accommodations without advance 

notice. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2021–0536 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

arra.sarah@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, 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, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Abigail Teener, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 353–7314, teener.abigail@

epa.gov. The EPA Region 5 office is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays and facility closures 

due to COVID–19. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. SO2 Background 

II. Detroit Background 

III. Requirements for SO2 Nonattainment 

Area Plans 

IV. Control Strategy 

A. Existing Control Strategies 

B. New Rules 

V. Longer-Term Averaging 

VI. Modeling 

A. Model Selection 

B. Meteorological Data 

C. Emissions Data 

D. Emission Limits 

E. Background Concentrations 

F. Comments Made During Previous EPA 

Rulemakings 

G. Summary of Results 

VII. Other Plan Requirements 

A. Emissions Inventory 

B. RACM/RACT and Enforceable 

Emissions Limitations 

C. New Source Review (NSR) 

D. RFP 

E. Contingency Measures 

VIII. What action is EPA taking? 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. SO2 Background 

On June 22, 2010, EPA published a 

new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75 

parts per billion (ppb), which is met at 

an ambient air quality monitoring site 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

99th percentile of daily maximum 1- 

hour average concentrations does not 

exceed 75 ppb, as determined in 

accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR 

part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 

CFR 50.17(a)–(b). On August 5, 2013, 

EPA designated 29 areas of the country 

as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS, including the Detroit area 

within the State of Michigan. See 78 FR 

47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, 

subpart C. These area designations 

became effective on October 4, 2013. 

Section 191 of the CAA directs states to 

submit state implementation plans 

(SIPs) for areas designated as 

nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS to 

EPA within 18 months of the effective 

date of the designation, i.e., by no later 

than April 4, 2015 in this case. These 

SIPs were required to demonstrate that 

their respective areas will attain the 

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, 

but no later than 5 years from the 

effective date of designation, which was 

October 4, 2018. 

II. Detroit Background 

For a number of nonattainment areas, 

including the Detroit area, EPA 

published an action on March 18, 2016, 

effective April 18, 2016, finding that 

Michigan and other pertinent states had 

failed to submit the required SO2

nonattainment plan by the submittal 

deadline (81 FR 14736). This finding 

initiated a deadline under CAA section 

179(a) for the potential imposition of 2- 

to-1 NSR offset and federal highway 

funding sanctions. Additionally, under 

CAA section 110(c), the finding 

triggered a requirement that EPA 

promulgate a FIP within two years of 

the finding unless, by that time, (a) the 

state had made the necessary complete 

submittal, and (b) EPA had approved 

the submittal as meeting applicable 

requirements. 

Michigan submitted the Detroit SO2

attainment plan on May 31, 2016, and 

submitted associated final enforceable 

measures on June 30, 2016. Michigan’s 

May 31, 2016, submittal was considered 

administratively complete six months 

after its submission to EPA, which 

terminated the sanctions clock per 

EPA’s sanctions regulations at 40 CFR 

52.31 but did not satisfy EPA’s FIP 

obligation under CAA section 110(c). As 

noted previously, EPA’s requirement to 

promulgate a FIP would remain in place 

unless (a) the state had made the 

necessary complete submittal, and (b) 

EPA had approved the submittal as 

meeting applicable requirements. 

On March 19, 2021, EPA partially 

approved and partially disapproved 

Michigan’s SO2 plan as submitted in 

2016 (86 FR 14827). EPA approved the 

base-year emissions inventory and 

affirmed that the NSR requirements for 

the area had previously been met on 

December 16, 2013 (78 FR 76064). EPA 

also approved the enforceable control 

measures for two facilities as SIP 

strengthening. At that time, EPA 

disapproved the attainment 

demonstration, as well as the 

requirements for meeting RFP toward 

attainment of the NAAQS, RACM/ 

RACT, and contingency measures. 

Additionally, EPA disapproved the 

plan’s control measures for two facilities 

as not demonstrating attainment. (For 

more details, see section IV.A of this 

action.) EPA’s March 19, 2021, partial 

disapproval started a new sanctions 

clock which is stopped by meeting the 

conditions of EPA’s regulations at 40 

CFR 52.31. The partial disapproval did 

not have any impact on the FIP clock, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 33097 

which is stopped by a full SIP approval 

or EPA’s promulgation of a FIP. 

As Michigan has not submitted an 

approvable plan for the Detroit area, the 

remainder of this action describes EPA 

requirements that SO2 nonattainment 

plans must meet and proposes a FIP for 

the Detroit area with respect to these 

requirements. Finalizing this action will 

satisfy EPA’s obligation to promulgate a 

FIP, which was initiated by the March 

18, 2016 finding that Michigan had 

failed to submit the required SO2

nonattainment plan by the submittal 

deadline (81 FR 14736). It will also 

satisfy the requirement in the court 

order issued on February 15, 2022, in 

Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v 

Regan, No. 4:21-cv-06166–JST (N.D. 

Cal.), directing EPA to either approve a 

SIP for Detroit meeting the applicable 

CAA requirements or promulgate a FIP 

for Detroit no later than September 30, 

2022. 

III. Requirements for SO2

Nonattainment Area Plans 

Nonattainment area plans for SO2

must meet the applicable requirements 

of the CAA, and specifically CAA 

sections 110, 172, 191 and 192. EPA’s 

regulations governing nonattainment 

area plans are set forth at 40 CFR part 

51, with specific procedural 

requirements and control strategy 

requirements residing at subparts F and 

G, respectively. Soon after Congress 

enacted the 1990 Amendments to the 

CAA, EPA issued comprehensive 

guidance on nonattainment plans, in a 

document entitled the ‘‘General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ published at 57 FR 13498 

(April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). 

Among other things, the General 

Preamble addressed SO2 nonattainment 

plans and fundamental principles for 

control strategies. Id., at 13545–49, 

13567–68. On April 23, 2014, EPA 

issued recommended guidance for 

meeting the statutory requirements in 

SO2 SIPs, in a document entitled, 

‘‘Guidance for 1-Hour SO2

Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,’’ 

available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2016-06/documents/ 

20140423guidance_nonattainment_

sip.pdf. While this guidance was 

intended for SIP submissions, the 

requirements outlined in the document 

are also applicable to FIPs. In this 

guidance, EPA described the statutory 

requirements for a complete 

nonattainment area plan, which 

includes: an accurate emissions 

inventory of current emissions for all 

sources of SO2 within the 

nonattainment area; an attainment 

demonstration; demonstration of RFP; 

implementation of RACM (including 

RACT); NSR; emissions limitations and 

control measures as necessary to attain 

the NAAQS; and adequate contingency 

measures for the affected area, which 

are to apply if the area fails to attain the 

standard by the attainment date. 

In order for a nonattainment area plan 

to meet the requirements of CAA 

sections 110, 172 and 191–192, and 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the 

plan for the affected area needs to 

demonstrate that each of the 

aforementioned requirements have been 

met. Under CAA sections 110(l) and 

193, a nonattainment area plan may not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning NAAQS 

attainment and RFP, or any other 

applicable requirement, and no 

requirement in effect (or required to be 

adopted by an order, settlement, 

agreement, or plan in effect before 

November 15, 1990) in any area which 

is a nonattainment area for any air 

pollutant, may be modified in any 

manner unless it ensures equivalent or 

greater emission reductions of such air 

pollutant. 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires 

nonattainment area plans to 

demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. 

40 CFR part 51, subpart G, further 

delineates the control strategy 

requirements that nonattainment area 

plans must meet, and EPA has long 

required that all nonattainment area 

plans and control strategies reflect four 

fundamental principles of 

quantification, enforceability, 

replicability, and accountability. 

General Preamble at 13567–68. SO2

attainment plans must consist of two 

components: (1) Emission limits and 

other control measures that ensure 

implementation of permanent, 

enforceable and necessary emission 

controls, and (2) a modeling analysis 

which meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 51 appendix W, which 

demonstrates that these emission limits 

and control measures provide for timely 

attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS 

as expeditiously as practicable, but by 

no later than the attainment date for the 

affected area. In all cases, the emission 

limits and control measures must be 

accompanied by appropriate methods 

and conditions to determine compliance 

with the respective emission limits and 

control measures and must be 

quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of 

emission reduction can be ascribed to 

the measures), fully enforceable 

(specifying clear, unambiguous and 

measurable requirements for which 

compliance can be practicably 

determined), replicable (the procedures 

for determining compliance are 

sufficiently specific and non-subjective 

so that two independent entities 

applying the procedures would obtain 

the same result), and accountable 

(source specific limits must be 

permanent and must reflect the 

assumptions used in the attainment 

demonstrations). 

Preferred air quality models for use in 

regulatory applications are described in 

appendix A of EPA’s Guideline on Air 

Quality Models (40 CFR part 51, 

appendix W). In 2005, EPA promulgated 

AERMOD as the Agency’s preferred 

near-field dispersion modeling for a 

wide range of regulatory applications 

addressing stationary sources (for 

example in estimating SO2

concentrations) in all types of terrain 

based on extensive developmental and 

performance evaluation. Supplemental 

guidance on modeling for purposes of 

demonstrating attainment of the SO2

standard is provided in appendix A to 

the April 23, 2014 SO2 nonattainment 

area SIP guidance document referenced 

above. Appendix A provides extensive 

guidance on the modeling domain, the 

source inputs, assorted types of 

meteorological data, and background 

concentrations. Consistency with the 

recommendations in this guidance is 

generally necessary for the attainment 

demonstration to offer adequately 

reliable assurance that the plan provides 

for attainment. 

As stated previously, attainment 

demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour 

primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate 

future attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS in the entire area 

designated as nonattainment (i.e., not 

just at the violating monitor). This is 

demonstrated by using air quality 

dispersion modeling (see appendix W to 

40 CFR part 51) that shows that the mix 

of sources, enforceable control 

measures, and emission rates in an 

identified area will not lead to a 

violation of the SO2 NAAQS. For a 

short-term (i.e., 1-hour) standard, EPA 

believes that dispersion modeling, using 

allowable emissions and addressing 

stationary sources in the affected area 

(and in some cases those sources located 

outside the nonattainment area which 

may affect attainment in the area) is 

technically appropriate, efficient and 

effective in demonstrating attainment in 

nonattainment areas because it takes 

into consideration combinations of 

meteorological and emission source 

operating conditions that may 

contribute to peak ground-level 

concentrations of SO2.

The meteorological data used in the 

analysis should generally be processed 

with the most recent version of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33098 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1The locations of these violations relative to the 

Southwestern High School (SWHS) monitor 

triggered the Detroit nonattainment designation. 

The violating receptors surrounding the Carmeuse 

Lime facility were approximately two miles to the 

southwest of the SWHS monitor, and the violating 

receptors near Zug Island were approximately one 

mile south of the SWHS monitor. Although the 

monitor has now been showing attainment for 

several years, EPA’s base case modeling continues 

to show NAAQS violations. 

2The Carmeuse Lime permit (Permit to Install 

193–14A) requires the construction of and venting 

of emissions through a new stack with a minimum 

height above ground of 120 feet (36.6 meters). The 

permit also establishes an enforceable hourly SO2

limit of 470 lbs/hr. Compliance must be shown by 

calculating and recording hourly SO2 emissions 

using the most current emission factor and the 

hourly limestone feed rate data. 

3 Issued April 29, 2016. 

4The DTE Trenton Channel permit (Permit to 

Install 125–11C) establishes an enforceable SO2

limit of 5,907 lbs/hr on a 30-day average basis. 

Compliance must be shown using a continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS), which was 

required to be operational by January 1, 2017. 

5Permit MI–ROP–B2810–2012c, modified on 

August 18, 2021. 

AERMET. Estimated concentrations 

should include ambient background 

concentrations, should follow the form 

of the standard, and should be 

calculated as described in section 

2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010 

clarification memo on ‘‘Applicability of 

appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 

1-hr SO2 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard’’ (U.S. EPA, 2010). 

IV. Control Strategy 

A. Existing Control Strategies 

Several control strategies for the 

Detroit area are already in place as a 

result of actions taken by the State 

related to the development of 

Michigan’s 2016 attainment plan. The 

remainder of this sub-section is a 

discussion of Michigan’s 2016 submittal 

and the existing control strategies that 

EPA is proposing to include as part of 

the FIP. 

Michigan’s 2016 submittal included a 

modeling demonstration that contained 

an assessment of the air quality impacts 

Michigan expected to result from 

emission limitations governing the 

following sources: U.S. Steel (Ecorse 

and Zug Island), EES Coke, DTE Energy 

(DTE) River Rouge, DTE Trenton 

Channel, Carmeuse Lime, DTE Monroe, 

Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation 

(formerly AK or Severstal Steel), 

Dearborn Industrial Generation (DIG), 

and Marathon Refinery. From the base 

case modeling scenario, Michigan 

determined that Carmeuse Lime was 

causing violations in the model at a 

group of receptors surrounding the 

Carmeuse Lime facility, and that U.S. 

Steel, DTE River Rouge, and DTE 

Trenton Channel were all contributing 

to overlapping violations at a group of 

receptors near the northeast side of Zug 

Island.1 No other modeled sources in or 

nearby the nonattainment area were 

found to be significantly contributing to 

the modeled violations. 

Michigan ran a variety of control 

scenarios to determine a reduction 

strategy for the area and submitted in its 

attainment demonstration emission 

limitations for Carmeuse Lime, DTE 

Trenton Channel, DTE River Rouge, and 

U.S. Steel. Michigan submitted for 

approval into the SIP revised 

construction permits for Carmeuse 

Lime, DTE Trenton Channel, and DTE 

River Rouge. 

For U.S. Steel, Michigan imposed 

emission limits it had concluded were 

necessary to bring the Detroit area into 

attainment via Michigan Administrative 

Code (MAC) 336.1430 (‘‘Rule 430’’). 

Michigan submitted Rule 430 to EPA as 

an enforceable limitation element for 

approval as part of its SO2 plan. 

Subsequently, U.S. Steel challenged 

the legality of Rule 430 under state law 

in the Michigan Court of Claims, which 

invalidated Rule 430 on October 4, 

2017. United States Steel Corp. v. Dept. 

of Environmental Quality, No. 16– 

000202–MZ, 2017 WL 5974195 (Mich. 

Ct. Cl. Oct. 4, 2017). Because the State’s 

submitted attainment demonstration 

relied on a limitation that is now 

unenforceable and, therefore, could not 

meet the requirements of CAA sections 

110 and 172, EPA disapproved the 

Detroit SO2 plan on March 19, 2021. 

Although the attainment plan as a 

whole was not approvable, EPA 

approved two of these three permits— 

for Carmeuse Lime and DTE Trenton 

Channel—in its March 19, 2021 action 

as SIP strengthening, which is 

appropriate for limits that improve air 

quality but do not meet a specific CAA 

requirement. This made the two permits 

permanent and federally enforceable by 

EPA and the State of Michigan. 

For Carmeuse Lime, on March 18, 

2016, the State issued Permit to Install 

193–14A, which required the 

construction of and venting of emissions 

through a new stack. The permit also 

established a more stringent, permanent, 

and enforceable SO2 limit.2 The State’s 

modeling indicated that the violation 

caused by Carmeuse Lime was resolved 

by this modification, which is well 

below the creditable stack height of 65 

meters as determined based on EPA’s 

regulatory definition of ‘‘good 

engineering practice (GEP)’’ per 40 CFR 

51.100(ii)(1). Because this enforceable 

emission limit reduces ground-level 

impacts, EPA approved it as SIP 

strengthening in the March 19, 2021 

action. Carmeuse Lime has constructed 

the new stack and has shown 

compliance with its limit since October 

1, 2018. As further discussed below, 

EPA has now evaluated the Carmeuse 

Lime permit as part of the Detroit area 

attainment plan and is proposing to 

include it as part of the FIP analysis. 

Similarly, EPA approved the DTE 

Trenton Channel permit (Permit to 

Install 125–11C).3 EPA’s FIP modeling 

analysis demonstrates that attainment at 

the previously modeled violating 

receptors can be achieved when the 

emission limits in the DTE Trenton 

Channel Permit 4 are analyzed together 

with other control strategies included in 

the FIP. DTE Trenton Channel has been 

in compliance with its limit since its 

compliance date of January 1, 2017. In 

addition to the Carmeuse Lime permit, 

EPA is also proposing to include the 

DTE Trenton Channel permit as part of 

the FIP analysis. 

Since Michigan’s 2016 submittal, all 

DTE River Rouge units with SO2

emissions have been shut down and the 

permit has been modified to reflect 

this.5 Consequently, the shutdown of 

the coal-fired boilers at DTE River 

Rouge is permanent and enforceable, 

and no restart of their operations can 

occur without undergoing NSR, 

including requirements to assess the 

impacts of future operations on 

maintaining NAAQS attainment. 

Likewise, any such restart would 

require a revision to the source’s title V 

permit, subject to EPA review and 

possible objection if a permit revision 

would not ensure compliance with all 

applicable CAA requirements. For these 

reasons, it is reasonable for the 

attainment modeling to treat DTE River 

Rouge’s SO2 emissions as zero. 

For EES Coke, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 

Corporation, and DIG, SO2 emission 

limits are included in their current 

operating permits (Permit to Install 51– 

08C, November 21, 2014, Permit MI– 

ROP–A8640–2016a, modified January 

19, 2017, and Permit MI–ROP–N6631– 

2012a, modified June 28, 2016, 

respectively). EPA has included these 

limits and compliance mechanisms in 

the FIP regulatory text to ensure 

permanence and enforceability, with 

one exception. In addition to an existing 

daily average limit of 420 lbs/hr for DIG 

Boilers 1, 2 and 3 (combined), EPA is 

proposing an additional daily average 

limit of 840 lbs/hr for DIG Boilers 1, 2, 

and 3 and Flares 1 and 2 (combined). 

Both limits will apply at all times. This 

additional limit is not reflective of any 

new control strategies, but rather is 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 33099 

6When Boilerhouse 2 is the only unit operating 

at the U.S. Steel facility, EPA is proposing an 

emission limit of 750.00 lbs/hr for U.S. Steel 

Boilerhouse 2. Assuming maximum operation for 

every hour in a year, 750.00 lbs/hr equates to 3,285 

tons per year. When any unit identified in section 

IV.B.2 of this action is operating in addition to 

Boilerhouse 2 at the U.S. Steel facility, EPA is 

proposing an emission limit of 81.00 lbs/hr for U.S. 

Steel Boilerhouse 2. The combined total of all 

emission limits for U.S. Steel (Boilerhouse 2 plus 

all units identified in section IV.B.2) in this 

scenario is 341.73 lbs/hr. Assuming maximum 

operation for every hour in a year, 341.73 lbs/hr 

equates to 1,497 tons per year. Therefore, in both 

scenarios, the total U.S. Steel allowable emissions 

do not exceed 5,000 tons per year. 

ensuring that maximum operating 

conditions are protective of the NAAQS. 

The existing control strategies 

specified in this section are reflected in 

current clean monitoring data from both 

monitors in the Detroit area. However, 

EPA’s modeling analysis shows that to 

model attainment throughout all the 

receptors in the Detroit area, new 

emission limits at U.S. Steel are needed, 

which are discussed in section IV.B 

below and included in the FIP 

regulatory language. 

B. New Rules 

The proposed FIP regulatory language 

includes new rules for U.S. Steel, which 

are described in the remainder of this 

sub-section. Additional details on 

compliance, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements are included in 

the FIP proposed regulatory language 

found in the proposed amendment to 40 

CFR part 52 § 52.1189 in this action. 

The emission limits and other 

requirements in these rules are reflected 

in EPA’s modeling. 

1. U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2 

EPA is proposing two separate limits 

for Boilerhouse 2 based on two different 

operating scenarios. When Boilerhouse 

2 is the only unit operating at the U.S. 

Steel facility, EPA is proposing an 

emission limit of 750.00 lbs/hr for U.S. 

Steel Boilerhouse 2. When any unit 

identified in section IV.B.2 of this action 

is operating in addition to Boilerhouse 

2 at the U.S. Steel facility, EPA is 

proposing an emission limit of 81.00 

lbs/hr for U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2. 

These limits would be effective two 

years after the effective date of the FIP, 

corresponding with the construction 

compliance schedule described below 

in this section. To determine 

compliance with these limits, the owner 

or operator would be required to install 

and continuously operate an SO2

continuous emission monitoring system 

(CEMS) not later than two years after the 

effective date of the FIP to measure SO2

emissions from Boilerhouse 2 in 

conformance with 40 CFR part 60 

appendix F procedure 1. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

require that the owner or operator of 

Boilerhouse 2 combine all five stacks at 

U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2 into a single 

larger stack, with a minimum height of 

170 feet (51.8 meters), which is well 

below the maximum creditable stack 

height of 65 meters as determined based 

on EPA’s regulatory definition of de 

minimis GEP stack height per 40 CFR 

51.100(ii)(1). This stack reconfiguration 

is not considered a dispersion technique 

under 40 CFR 51.100(hh) as the 

allowable SO2 emissions for the entire 

U.S. Steel facility do not exceed 5,000 

tons per year.6 See 40 CFR 

51.100(hh)(2)(v). The owner or operator 

would be required to submit a 

construction permit application for the 

new stack to the State of Michigan no 

later than 90 days after the effective date 

of the FIP and would be required to 

commence stack operation not later than 

two years after the effective date of the 

FIP. This compliance schedule allows 

time for the State of Michigan to issue 

the permit, the owner or operator to 

send out requests for proposal and 

award a construction contract and 

procure materials, and for completion of 

construction. 

2. Other U.S. Steel Units 

The proposed FIP SO2 emission limits 

for the remaining U.S. Steel units are 

shown below in Table 1. These limits 

would become effective on the effective 

date of the FIP. Compliance with these 

limits would be determined hourly by 

calculating SO2 emissions using all raw 

material sulfur charged into each 

affected emission unit and assuming 

100 percent conversion of total sulfur to 

SO2. For all units except Boilerhouse 2 

and any idled units, the owner or 

operator of the units would be required 

to implement a compliance assurance 

plan (CAP) that specifies the calculation 

methodology, procedures, and inputs 

used in these calculations and would be 

required to submit the plan to EPA 

within 30 days after the effective date of 

the FIP. The owner or operator would be 

required to submit a list of idled units 

within 30 days of the effective date of 

the FIP and would be required to submit 

a CAP for any idled units before 

resuming operation. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR U.S. STEEL UNITS * 

Unit 

Proposed SO2

emission limit 

(lbs/hr) 

Boilerhouse 1 (all stacks combined) ................................................................................................................................................... 55.00 

Hot Strip Mill—Slab Reheat Furnace 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.31 

Hot Strip Mill—Slab Reheat Furnace 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.31 

Hot Strip Mill—Slab Reheat Furnace 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.31 

Hot Strip Mill—Slab Reheat Furnace 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.31 

Hot Strip Mill—Slab Reheat Furnace 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.31 

No. 2 Baghouse ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.30 

Main Plant Boiler No. 8 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.07 

Main Plant Boiler No. 9 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.07 

A1 Blast Furnace ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.00 

B2 Blast Furnace ................................................................................................................................................................................. 40.18 

D4 Blast Furnace ................................................................................................................................................................................. 40.18 

A/B Blast Furnace Flares .................................................................................................................................................................... 60.19 

D Furnace Flare ................................................................................................................................................................................... 60.19 

* This table does not include proposed limits for Boilerhouse 2, which are described in section IV.B.1 of this action. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33100 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

7An ‘‘average year’’ is used to mean a year with 

average air quality. While 40 CFR 50 appendix T 

provides for averaging three years of 99th percentile 

daily maximum values (e.g., the fourth highest 

maximum daily concentration in a year with 365 

days with valid data), this discussion and an 

example below use a single ‘‘average year’’ in order 

to simplify the illustration of relevant principles. 

V. Longer-Term Averaging 

EPA’s April 2014 guidance 

recommends that the emission limits be 

expressed as short-term average limits 

(e.g., addressing emissions averaged 

over one or three hours), but also 

describes the option to utilize emission 

limits with longer averaging times of up 

to 30 days so long as various suggested 

criteria are met. See 2014 guidance, pp. 

22 to 39. The guidance recommends 

that, should longer-term averaging times 

be used, the longer-term average limit 

should be set at an adjusted level that 

reflects a stringency comparable to the 

1-hour average limit at the critical 

emission value shown to provide for 

attainment that the plan otherwise 

would have set. 

The April 2014 guidance provides an 

extensive discussion of EPA’s rationale 

for concluding that appropriately set 

comparably stringent limitations based 

on averaging times as long as 30 days 

can be found to provide for attainment 

of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In evaluating 

this option, EPA considered the nature 

of the standard, conducted detailed 

analyses of the impact of use of 30-day 

average limits on the prospects for 

attaining the standard, and carefully 

reviewed how best to achieve an 

appropriate balance among the various 

factors that warrant consideration in 

judging whether a nonattainment area 

plan provides for attainment. Id. at pp. 

22 to 39. See also id. at appendices B, 

C, and D. 

As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 

1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an 

ambient air quality monitoring site 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

99th percentile of daily maximum 1- 

hour concentrations is less than or equal 

to 75 ppb. In a year with 365 days of 

valid monitoring data, the 99th 

percentile would be the fourth highest 

daily maximum 1-hour value. The 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, including this form of 

determining compliance with the 

standard, was upheld by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit in Nat’l Envt’l Dev. Ass’n’s Clean 

Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d 803 (D.C. 

Cir. 2012). Because the standard has this 

form, a single hourly exceedance of the 

75 ppb level does not create a violation 

of the standard. Instead, at issue is 

whether a source operating in 

compliance with a properly set longerterm average could cause exceedances, 

and if so, the resulting frequency and 

magnitude of such exceedances, and in 

particular whether EPA can have 

reasonable confidence that a properly 

set longer-term average limit will 

provide that the 3-year average of 

annual fourth highest daily maximum 

hourly values will be at or below 75 

ppb. A synopsis of how EPA judges 

whether such plans ‘‘provide for 

attainment,’’ based on modeling of 

projected allowable emissions and in 

consideration of the form of the NAAQS 

for determining attainment at 

monitoring sites follows. 

For SO2 plans based on 1-hour 

emission limits, the standard approach 

is to conduct modeling using fixed 

emission rates. The maximum emission 

rate that would be modeled to result in 

attainment (i.e., in an ‘‘average year’’ 7

which shows three days with a 

maximum hourly level exceeding 75 

ppb) is labeled the ‘‘critical emission 

value.’’ The modeling process for 

identifying this critical emissions value 

inherently considers the numerous 

variables that affect ambient 

concentrations of SO2, such as 

meteorological data, background 

concentrations, and topography. In the 

standard approach, the state would then 

provide for attainment by setting a 

continuously applicable 1-hour 

emission limit at this critical emission 

value. 

EPA recognizes that some sources 

have highly variable emissions, for 

example due to variations in fuel sulfur 

content and operating rate, that can 

make it extremely difficult, even with a 

well-designed control strategy, to ensure 

in practice that emissions for any given 

hour do not exceed the critical emission 

value. EPA also acknowledges the 

concern that longer-term emission limits 

can allow short periods with emissions 

above the critical emissions value, 

which, if coincident with 

meteorological conditions conducive to 

high SO2 concentrations, could in turn 

create the possibility of a NAAQS 

exceedance occurring on a day when an 

exceedance would not have occurred if 

emissions were continuously controlled 

at the level corresponding to the critical 

emissions value. However, for several 

reasons, EPA believes that the approach 

recommended in its guidance document 

suitably addresses this concern. First, 

from a practical perspective, EPA 

expects the actual emission profile of a 

source subject to an appropriately set 

longer-term average limit to be similar 

to the emission profile of a source 

subject to an analogous 1-hour average 

limit. EPA expects this similarity 

because it has recommended that the 

longer-term average limit be set at a 

level that is comparably stringent to the 

otherwise applicable 1-hour limit 

(reflecting a downward adjustment from 

the critical emissions value such that 

the longer-term limit has a lower 

permissible emission rate than that of 

the critical emissions value) and that 

takes the source’s emissions profile into 

account. As a result, EPA expects either 

form of emission limit to yield 

comparable air quality. 

Second, from a more theoretical 

perspective, EPA has compared the 

likely air quality with a source having 

maximum allowable emissions under an 

appropriately set longer-term limit, as 

compared to the likely air quality with 

the source having maximum allowable 

emissions under the comparable 1-hour 

limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour 

average limit scenario, the source is 

presumed at all times to emit at the 

critical emission level, and in the 

longer-term average limit scenario, the 

source is presumed occasionally to emit 

more than the critical emissions value 

but on average, and presumably at most 

times, to emit well below the critical 

emissions value. In an ‘‘average year,’’ 

compliance with the 1-hour limit is 

expected to result in three exceedance 

days (i.e., three days with hourly values 

above 75 ppb) and a fourth day with a 

maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By 

comparison, with the source complying 

with a longer-term limit, it is possible 

that additional exceedances would 

occur that would not occur in the 1- 

hour limit scenario (if emissions exceed 

the critical emissions value at times 

when meteorology is conducive to poor 

air quality). However, this comparison 

must also factor in the likelihood that 

exceedances that would be expected in 

the 1-hour limit scenario would not 

occur in the longer-term limit scenario. 

This result arises because the longerterm limit requires lower emissions 

most of the time (because the limit is set 

well below the critical emissions value), 

so a source complying with an 

appropriately set longer-term limit is 

likely to have lower emissions at critical 

times than would be the case if the 

source were emitting as allowed with a 

1-hour limit. 

As a hypothetical example to 

illustrate these points, suppose a source 

always emits 1,000 pounds of SO2 per 

hour (lbs/hr), which results in air 

quality at the level of the NAAQS (i.e., 

results in a design value of 75 ppb). 

Suppose further that in an ‘‘average 

year,’’ these emissions cause the 5 

highest maximum daily average 1-hour 

concentrations to be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 

ppb, 75 ppb, and 70 ppb. Then suppose 

that the source becomes subject to a 30- 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 33101 

8See also further analyses described in 

rulemaking on the SO2 nonattainment plan for 

Southwest Indiana. In response to comments 

expressing concern that the emission profiles 

analyzed for appendix B represented actual rather 

than allowable emissions, EPA conducted 

additional work formulating sample allowable 

emission profiles and analyzing the resulting air 

quality impact. This analysis provided further 

support for the conclusion that an appropriately set 

longer-term average emission limit in appropriate 

circumstances can suitably provide for attainment. 

The rulemaking describing these further analyses 

was published on August 17, 2020, at 85 FR 49967, 

available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ 

FR-2020-08-17/pdf/2020-16044.pdf. A more 

detailed description of these analyses is available in 

the docket for that action, specifically at https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-R05-OAR2015-0700-0023. 

9For example, if the critical emission value is 

1,000 lbs/hr of SO2, and a suitable adjustment factor 

is determined to be 70 percent, the recommended 

longer term average limit would be 700 lbs/hr. 

day average emission limit of 700 lbs/ 

hr. It is theoretically possible for a 

source meeting this limit to have 

emissions that occasionally exceed 

1,000 lbs/hr, but with a typical 

emissions profile emissions would 

much more commonly be between 600 

and 800 lbs/hr. In this simplified 

example, assume a zero background 

concentration, which allows one to 

assume a linear relationship between 

emissions and air quality. (A nonzero 

background concentration would make 

the mathematics more difficult but 

would give similar results.) Air quality 

will depend on what emissions happen 

on what critical hours, but suppose that 

emissions at the relevant times on these 

5 days are 800 lbs/hr, 1,100 lbs/hr, 500 

lbs/hr, 900 lbs/hr, and 1,200 lbs/hr, 

respectively. (This is a conservative 

example because the average of these 

emissions, 900 lbs/hr, is well over the 

30-day average emission limit.) These 

emissions would result in daily 

maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 

ppb, 99 ppb, 40 ppb, 67.5 ppb, and 84 

ppb. In this example, the fifth day 

would have an exceedance that would 

not otherwise have occurred (84 ppb 

under the 30-day average limit 

compared to 70 ppb under the 1-hour 

limit). However, the third day would 

not have an exceedance that otherwise 

would have occurred (40 ppb under the 

30-day average limit compared to 80 

ppb under the 1-hour limit). The fourth 

day would have been below, rather than 

at, 75 ppb (67.5 ppb under the 30-day 

average limit compared to 75 ppb under 

the 1-hour limit). In this example, the 

fourth highest maximum daily 

concentration under the 30-day average 

would be 67.5 ppb. 

This simplified example illustrates 

the findings of a more complicated 

statistical analysis that EPA conducted 

using a range of scenarios incorporating 

actual plant data. As described in 

appendix B of EPA’s April 2014 SO2

nonattainment planning guidance, EPA 

found that the requirement for lower 

average emissions is likely to yield as 

good air quality as is required with a 

comparably stringent 1-hour limit. 

Based on analyses described in 

appendix B of its 2014 guidance and 

similar subsequent work, EPA expects 

that emission profiles with maximum 

allowable emissions under an 

appropriately set comparably stringent 

30-day average limit are likely to have 

the net effect of no more exceedances 

and air quality as good as that of an 

emission profile with maximum 

allowable emissions under a 1-hour 

emission limit at the critical emission 

value.8 This result provides a 

compelling policy rationale for allowing 

the use of a longer averaging period, in 

appropriate circumstances where the 

facts indicate this result can be expected 

to occur. 

The question then becomes whether 

this approach, which is likely to 

produce a lower number of overall 

exceedances even though it may 

produce some unexpected exceedances 

above the critical emission value, meets 

the requirement in section 110(a)(1) and 

172(c)(1) for SIPs to ‘‘provide for 

attainment’’ of the NAAQS. For SO2, as 

for other pollutants, it is generally 

impossible to design a nonattainment 

plan in the present that will guarantee 

that attainment will occur in the future. 

A variety of factors can cause a welldesigned attainment plan to fail and 

unexpectedly not result in attainment, 

for example if meteorology occurs that 

is more conducive to poor air quality 

than was anticipated in the plan. 

Therefore, in determining whether a 

plan meets the requirement to provide 

for attainment, EPA’s task is commonly 

to judge not whether the plan provides 

absolute certainty that attainment will 

in fact occur, but rather whether the 

plan provides an adequate level of 

confidence of prospective NAAQS 

attainment. From this perspective, in 

evaluating use of a 30-day average limit, 

EPA must weigh the likely net effect on 

air quality. Such an evaluation must 

consider the risk that occasions with 

meteorology conducive to high 

concentrations will have elevated 

emissions leading to exceedances that 

would not otherwise have occurred, and 

must also weigh the likelihood that the 

requirement for lower emissions on 

average will result in days not having 

exceedances that would have been 

expected with emissions at the critical 

emissions value. Additional policy 

considerations, such as accommodating 

real world emissions variability without 

significant risk of violations, are also 

appropriate factors for EPA to weigh in 

judging whether a plan provides a 

reasonable degree of confidence that the 

plan will lead to attainment. Based on 

these considerations, EPA believes that 

a continuously enforceable limit 

averaged over as long as 30 days, if 

determined in accordance with EPA’s 

guidance, can reasonably be considered 

to provide for attainment of the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

The April 2014 guidance offers 

specific recommendations for 

determining an appropriate longer-term 

average limit. The recommended 

method starts with determination of the 

1-hour emission limit that would 

provide for attainment (i.e., the critical 

emissions value), then applies an 

adjustment factor to determine the 

(lower) level of the longer-term average 

emission limit that would be estimated 

to have a stringency comparable to the 

1-hour emission limit. This method uses 

a database of continuous emission data 

reflecting the type of control that the 

source will be using to comply with the 

nonattainment area plan emission 

limits, which (if compliance requires 

new controls) may require use of an 

emission database from another source. 

The recommended method involves 

using these data to compute a complete 

set of emission averages, computed 

according to the averaging time and 

averaging procedures of the prospective 

emission limitation. In this 

recommended method, the ratio of the 

99th percentile among these long-term 

averages to the 99th percentile of the 1- 

hour values represents an adjustment 

factor that may be multiplied by the 

candidate 1-hour emission limit to 

determine a longer-term average 

emission limit that may be considered 

comparably stringent.9 The guidance 

also addresses a variety of related 

topics, such as the potential utility of 

setting supplemental emission limits, 

such as mass-based limits, to reduce the 

likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated 

emission levels that might occur under 

the longer-term emission rate limit. 

VI. Modeling 

The following discussion is a 

summary of various features of the 

modeling that EPA used in developing 

the proposed FIP. The modeling 

analysis conducted by EPA to support 

the FIP was adapted from the modeling 

analysis conducted by Michigan to 

support Michigan’s 2016 nonattainment 

plan. A more in-depth discussion of the 

modeling, including an explanation of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33102 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

10AERMOD version 21112 resolved errors and 

bugs that were found in version 15181 and 

introduced some new modeling options. For more 

information on the differences between AERMOD 

versions, see https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-quality

-dispersion-modeling-preferred-and-recommendedmodels. 

11More information on dispersion coefficients 

can be found in the TSD for this action. 

the differences between EPA’s and 

Michigan’s modeling analyses, is 

presented in a technical support 

document (TSD) included in the docket 

for this action. 

A. Model Selection 

EPA used AERMOD, the preferred 

model for this application. EPA used 

version 21112 of this model, which is 

the most current version. In its 2016 

submittal, Michigan had instead used 

version 15181, which was the current 

version at that time.10

EPA’s receptor grid and modeling 

domain for the Detroit area followed the 

recommended approaches from EPA’s 

Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 

CFR part 51, appendix W). A uniform 

Cartesian receptor grid was used with 

receptor spacing of 100 meters 

throughout the modeled domain, which 

was consistent with the grid Michigan 

used in its 2016 submittal. 

Although EPA’s Guideline on Air 

Quality Models recommends that areas 

such as Detroit should be modeled using 

urban dispersion coefficients, Michigan 

found in its 2016 modeling analysis that 

using urban dispersion coefficients 

caused the model to overpredict 

monitored concentrations by 2–3 times 

due to overpredictions with tall 

stacks.11 As discussed further in the 

TSD, EPA agrees with Michigan’s use of 

rural dispersion coefficients and 

therefore used rural dispersion options 

for tall stacks at EES Coke, DTE Trenton 

Channel, and DTE Monroe, and urban 

dispersion option for the remaining 

modeled sources. 

B. Meteorological Data 

EPA used the Detroit Metropolitan 

Wayne County Airport’s (KDTW) 

meteorological surface data and the 

White Lake (DTX) meteorological upper 

air data for the years 2016–2020 for 

modeling the Detroit area. The surface 

station is located less than 22 kilometers 

from the SO2 sources in the Detroit area 

and is located in similar terrain. 

C. Emissions Data 

EPA included all point sources within 

50 kilometers of Detroit in its modeling 

analysis. These sources included U.S. 

Steel (Ecorse and Zug Island), EES Coke, 

DTE Trenton Channel, Carmeuse Lime, 

DTE Monroe, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 

Corporation, DIG, and Marathon 

Refinery. DTE River Rouge was not 

included in the modeling analysis as all 

the units with SO2 emissions have been 

permanently and enforceably shut 

down. EPA found that no other sources 

outside the nonattainment area were 

close enough to cause significant 

concentration gradients. 

D. Emission Limits 

An important aspect of an attainment 

plan is that the emission limits that 

provide for attainment be quantifiable, 

fully enforceable, replicable, and 

accountable. See General Preamble at 

13567–68. The FIP analysis includes 

limits for U.S. Steel, EES Coke, 

Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation, DIG, 

Carmeuse Lime, and DTE Trenton 

Channel. The limit for Trenton Channel 

is expressed as a 30-day average limit, 

and the limits for Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 

Corporation and DIG are expressed as 

daily average limits. Therefore, part of 

the Detroit FIP must address the use of 

these longer-term average limits, both 

with respect to the general suitability of 

using such limits for demonstrating 

attainment and with respect to whether 

the particular limits included in the 

plan have been suitably demonstrated to 

provide for attainment. The first 

subsection that follows addresses the 

enforceability of the limits in the plan, 

and the second subsection that follows 

addresses in particular the 30-day and 

daily average limits. 

1. Enforceability 

In preparing its 2016 plan, Michigan 

adopted Permit to Install 193–14A, 

governing the Carmeuse Lime SO2

emissions, and Permit to Install 125– 

11C, governing the DTE Trenton 

Channel SO2 emissions. These 

construction permit revisions were 

adopted by Michigan following 

established, appropriate public review 

procedures. The Carmeuse Lime permit 

required the construction of and venting 

of emissions through a new stack with 

a minimum height above ground of 120 

feet (36.6 meters). The permit also 

established a permanent and 

enforceable SO2 limit of 470 lbs/hr. 

EPA’s modeling indicates that the 

modeling violation caused by Carmeuse 

has been resolved by this modification, 

which is well below the maximum 

creditable stack height of 65 meters as 

determined based on EPA’s regulatory 

definition of de minimis GEP stack 

height per 40 CFR 51.100(ii)(1). The 

DTE Trenton Channel permit 

established an enforceable SO2 limit of 

5,907 lbs/hr on a 30-day rolling average 

basis. EPA modeling demonstrates that 

attainment at violating receptors can be 

achieved when the emission limits in 

the DTE Trenton Channel Permit are 

analyzed together with the shutdown of 

the River Rouge facility. In accordance 

with EPA policy, the 30-day average 

limit is set at a lower level than the 

emission rate used in the attainment 

demonstration; the relationship between 

these two values is discussed in more 

detail in the following section. The 

permit compliance dates were October 

1, 2018 for Carmeuse Lime and January 

1, 2017 for DTE Trenton Channel. Both 

of these permits were incorporated into 

Michigan’s SIP as part of EPA’s March 

19, 2021 action, and both facilities have 

been complying with their limits since 

their compliance dates. 

Michigan adopted a revision to the 

renewable operating permit governing 

DTE River Rouge emissions, Permit MI– 

ROP–B2810–2012c, on August 18, 2021, 

that reflects the shutdown of the coalfired boilers. As explained in section 

IV.A above, the shutdown of the coalfired boilers at DTE River Rouge is 

permanent and enforceable. 

Emission limits and associated 

requirements for U.S. Steel, EES Coke, 

Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation, and 

DIG will be made permanent and 

enforceable by the inclusion in the FIP 

regulatory language. The codification 

section of the FIP includes new 

emission limits and associated 

requirements for the U.S. Steel units 

and the DIG Boilers 1, 2, and 3 and 

Flares 1 and 2 flexible group, as well as 

emission limits and compliance 

mechanisms for EES Coke, ClevelandCliffs Steel Corporation, and DIG (with 

the one aforementioned exception) that 

are also required by the sources’ existing 

operating permits. 

As described further in the TSD, EPA 

modeled the maximum uncontrolled 

emission rate for any unit in the 

nonattainment area that does not have 

an SO2 emission limit already 

incorporated into the Michigan SIP or 

included in the codification section of 

the FIP. 

2. Longer-Term Average Limits 

The following subsection addresses 

the 30-day average limit for DTE 

Trenton Channel and the daily average 

limits for Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 

Corporation and DIG. As previously 

discussed in detail in Section V of this 

notice, EPA supports adoption of 

longer-term average limits, as EPA’s 

guidance recommends modeling of a 1- 

hour ‘‘critical emissions value’’ (CEV) 

and application of a properly derived 

adjustment factor demonstrates that the 

longer-term limit is comparably 

stringent to the modeled 1-hour CEV 

that would otherwise be reflected in the 

emission limit. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 33103 

12The DTE Trenton Channel Unit 9A 30-day 

average SO2 emissions are calculated on a rolling 

basis as determined at the end of every calendar 

day. 

13See section VI.G of this action for a summary 

of EPA’s modeling results. 

Michigan’s 2016 plan included 

permits with 30-day average emission 

limits for DTE River Rouge and Trenton 

Channel that, when modeled using 

comparably stringent 1-hour emission 

rates, demonstrated attainment of the 

SO2 NAAQS in the areas that had 

previously shown violations caused by 

the DTE facilities. Both DTE River 

Rouge and Trenton Channel requested 

limits expressed as a 30-day average in 

order to have longer-term limits that 

allow for ordinary fluctuations in 

emissions but are comparably stringent 

to hourly limits and still provide for 

attainment. Although Michigan’s 2016 

plan included a 30-day average 

emission limit for DTE River Rouge, 

EPA is not evaluating a longer-term 

average limit for DTE River Rouge as the 

facility has since been shut down. 

DTE submitted to Michigan an 

analysis supporting the DTE Trenton 

Channel Unit 9A 30-day average 

emission limits using CEMS heat input 

data, SO2 emissions factors, and coal 

blend projections. DTE calculated an 

adjustment factor of 0.87 for the DTE 

Trenton Channel unit. 

However, as EPA was reviewing 

Michigan’s 2016 submittal, EPA found 

that DTE’s adjustment factor calculation 

did not account for fuel variability, 

which increased significantly after 2016 

when the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards (MATS) took effect. 

Therefore, EPA completed its own 

adjustment factor analysis following the 

2014 SO2 guidance using 2015–2019 

DTE Trenton Channel operating data, 

which was the most recent data at the 

time of the analysis and included DTE 

Trenton Channel’s transition to 

compliance with the MATS. EPA 

calculated an adjustment factor of 0.771. 

For DTE Trenton Channel, EPA used 

its calculated adjustment factor of 0.771 

and the permitted 30-day-average 

emission limit of 5,907 lbs/hr 12 to 

calculate the comparably stringent 1- 

hour emission rate for DTE Trenton 

Channel of 7,661 lbs/hr. EPA used the 

comparably stringent 1-hour emission 

rate in its modeling analysis to confirm 

that the DTE Trenton Channel limit 

would result in attainment. The 1-hour 

emission rate that EPA used for its 

modeling analysis (7,661 lbs/hr) is more 

stringent than the CEV that would 

otherwise have been necessary to 

provide for attainment, as the CEV 

represents the maximum 1-hour 

emission rate that would result in 

attainment when modeled, and the 

maximum concentration that EPA 

modeled was below the NAAQS.13

Although EPA used a more 

conservative adjustment factor in its FIP 

modeling analysis than Michigan used 

in its 2016 submittal, EPA used the 

same permitted 30-day-average emission 

limit of 5,907 lbs/hr. Therefore, the 

comparably stringent 1-hour emission 

rate that EPA used was higher than the 

rate that Michigan used. However, 

EPA’s modeling analysis shows that this 

higher 1-hour emission rate for DTE 

Trenton Channel still provides for 

attainment, largely due to EPA’s 

exclusion of DTE River Rouge emissions 

in its analysis. 

For Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation 

and DIG, EPA does not have a sufficient 

historical record of CEMS data to be 

able to evaluate source-specific 

emissions variability for purposes of 

determining source-specific factors by 

which to calculate the comparably 

stringent 1-hour limits from the sources’ 

daily average limits. Instead, EPA 

determined the comparably stringent 1- 

hour emission rates by applying one of 

the national average adjustment factors 

listed in appendix D of EPA’s 2014 SO2

guidance. For Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 

Corporation, EPA divided the furnace 

stove daily average limits by an 

adjustment factor of 0.89, reflecting the 

national average adjustment factor that 

EPA found among facilities with wet 

scrubbers, and the furnace baghouse 

daily average limits by an adjustment 

factor of 0.93, reflecting the national 

average adjustment factor that EPA 

found among facilities without control 

equipment. For DIG, EPA divided the 

daily average limits by an adjustment 

factor of 0.93, reflecting the national 

average adjustment factor that EPA 

found among facilities without control 

equipment. The Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 

Corporation and DIG daily average 

limits and comparably stringent 1-hour 

emission rates are shown below in Table 

2. 

TABLE 2—CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL CORPORATION AND DIG DAILY AVERAGE LIMITS AND COMPARABLY STRINGENT

1-HOUR EMISSION RATES

Unit(s) Daily average 

emission limit Adjustment factor 

Modeled comparably stringent 

1-hour emission rate 

(lbs/hr) 

Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation * 

‘‘B’’ Blast Furnace Baghouse and 

Stove Stacks (combined).

77.8 lbs/hr ............ 0.93 for Furnace Baghouse and 

0.89 for Furnace Stove.

85.91 lbs/hr (modeled as 33.46 lbs/hr for the furnace baghouse and 52.45 lbs/hr for the furnace 

stove). 

‘‘C’’ Blast Furnace Baghouse and 

Stove Stacks (combined).

271.4 lbs/hr .......... 0.93 for Furnace Stove and 0.89 

for Furnace Baghouse.

299.70 lbs/hr (modeled as 116.73 lbs/hr for the 

furnace baghouse and 182.97 lbs/hr for the furnace stove). 

DIG 

Boilers 1, 2, and 3 (combined) ..... 420 lbs/hr ............. 0.93 .............................................. 451.62 lbs/hr (modeled as 150.54 lbs/hr per boiler). 

Boilers 1, 2, and 3, and Flares 1 

and 2 (combined).

840 lbs/hr ............. 0.93 .............................................. 903.24 lbs/hr (modeled as 150.54 lbs/hr per boiler 

and 451.62 lbs/hr for Flare 2, as Flare 1 is no 

longer operational). 

* Note: Modeled emissions were split between the furnace stoves and baghouses at a 60:40 ratio, which was the most conservative option 

based on capacity data over the last several years. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33104 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

EPA believes that the 30-day-average 

limit for DTE Trenton Channel and the 

daily average limits for Cleveland-Cliffs 

Steel Corporation and DIG provide 

suitable alternatives to establishing 1- 

hour average emission limits for these 

sources. EPA proposes to find that the 

adjustment factors of 0.771 for DTE 

Trenton Channel, 0.89 for ClevelandCliffs Steel Corporation furnace stoves, 

0.93 for Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 

Corporation furnace baghouses, and 

0.93 for DIG are appropriate. When the 

longer-term limits were divided by these 

adjustment factors, they resulted in 

modeled comparably stringent 1-hour 

emission rates that are equal to or more 

stringent than the 1-hour average 

emission rates represented by the CEV 

that would otherwise have been 

necessary to provide for attainment. 

While the longer-term average limits 

allow occasions in which emissions 

may be higher than the level that would 

be allowed with the 1-hour limits, the 

longer-term average limits compensate 

by requiring average emissions to be 

lower than the level that would 

otherwise have been required by a 1- 

hour average limit that would be 

represented by the CEV. As described 

above and explained in more detail in 

EPA’s April 2014 guidance for SO2

nonattainment plans, EPA finds that 

appropriately set longer-term average 

limits provide a reasonable basis by 

which nonattainment plans will provide 

for attainment. 

E. Background Concentrations 

EPA determined background 

concentrations for the Detroit area using 

monitoring data from the Allen Park 

monitor (AQS ID 26–163–0001), which 

is approximately 17 kilometers 

southwest of Detroit. The background 

concentration values that EPA used 

varied by season and hour-of-day and 

ranged from 0.1 to 11.9 ppb. 

F. Comments Made During Previous 

EPA Rulemakings 

During the comment period for EPA’s 

March 19, 2021, partial approval and 

partial disapproval of Michigan’s 2016 

plan for the Detroit area, EPA received 

21 supportive comments, nine 

comments not directly relevant to the 

rulemaking, and a joint comment letter 

from Sierra Club and Earthjustice that 

was partially adverse. 

Part of the joint letter from Sierra Club 

and Earthjustice included information 

about alleged flaws in the State’s 

modeling report. While EPA was not 

evaluating whether Michigan’s 

modeling report supported attainment 

of the Detroit area in its March 19, 2021 

action, EPA believes these comments 

are relevant to EPA’s modeling analysis 

for the FIP. Therefore, EPA has 

considered the comments as part of the 

FIP development. The remainder of this 

section summarizes the portion of the 

comment letter that addressed the 

commenters’ modeling concerns as well 

as EPA’s proposed response to these 

comments. 

First, the commenters expressed 

concerns that the State did not use an 

appropriate background concentration 

in its modeling analysis. Michigan used 

hourly SO2 data from the Allen Park 

monitor for the years 2012–2014 in its 

2016 analysis and excluded hourly 

concentrations associated with wind 

directions between and including 40 

degrees and 205 degrees using 

meteorological data from Allen Park. In 

the modeling analysis for the FIP, EPA 

used a similar method to Michigan’s to 

calculate the background concentration. 

EPA used hourly SO2 data from 2018– 

2020 at the Allen Park monitor, along 

with Allen Park wind data to generate 

Season/Hour-of-Day concentrations. 

Concentrations associated with wind 

directions between and including 40 

degrees and 205 degrees were excluded 

due to SO2 concentrations at the Allen 

Park monitor being influenced by 

sources explicitly included in the 

modeling analysis. This includes U.S. 

Steel, DTE River Rouge, EES Coke, 

Carmeuse Lime, Marathon, ClevelandCliffs Steel Corporation and DIG to the 

northeast and DTE Trenton Channel and 

DTE Monroe to the south and 

southwest. Wind direction checks were 

made for the preceding hour as well. 

Only days with eight hours or more of 

valid observations with wind directions 

not between and including 40 and 205 

degrees were included, and the second 

highest concentration for each season 

and hour-of-day combination was 

selected. EPA’s August 2016 ‘‘SO2

NAAQS Designations Modeling 

Technical Assistance Document’’ 

(Modeling TAD) discusses that the use 

of hour-of-day and season background 

concentrations based on the 99th 

percentile 1-hour SO2 concentrations 

over three years is appropriate for use in 

modeling against the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. The Modeling TAD states that 

‘‘to calculate the 99th percentile 

concentration for a season and hour of 

day combination, the second highest 

concentration for that combination 

should be selected.’’ The Modeling TAD 

also concurs that it is appropriate to 

exclude periods when the source(s) in 

question is/are expected to impact the 

monitored concentrations. 

Second, the commenters stated that 

the state failed to adjust the 30-day 

average limits for DTE River Rouge and 

Trenton Channel to a level that was 

comparably stringent to a 1-hour limit 

that would achieve the SO2 NAAQS. As 

described in section VI.D.2 above, EPA 

calculated a lower, more conservative 

adjustment factor than was used in 

Michigan’s 2016 modeling analysis for 

the DTE River Rouge and Trenton 

Channel facilities. For DTE Trenton 

Channel, EPA used the lower 

adjustment factor and the 30-day 

average limit to calculate a higher 

comparably stringent 1-hour emission 

rate, which EPA used in its modeling 

analysis to show attainment, that is 

equal to or more stringent than the 1- 

hour emission rate represented by the 

CEV. As all DTE River Rouge units 

emitting SO2 have been permanently 

shut down, EPA removed the source 

from the modeling analysis and did not 

include the 30-day average SO2

emission limits for DTE River Rouge in 

the FIP. EPA believes that the current 

adjustment factor being used in the FIP 

for DTE Trenton Channel is properly 

calculated and protective of the 

NAAQS. 

Finally, the commenters 

recommended that EPA evaluate the 

State’s emissions inventory and 

consider any significant SO2 sources 

that were excluded in future modeling. 

Specifically, the commenters noted that 

three DIG natural gas combustion 

turbines, a DIG boiler co-firing natural 

gas and blast furnace gas, the DTE EES 

Coke Bypass Bleeder Flare, DTE EES 

Coke coke oven door leaks, and all 

Marathon Refinery flares were not 

included in Michigan’s 2016 modeling 

analysis. EPA has evaluated these 

sources and they have been included in 

this modeling analysis for the FIP. The 

full list of sources included in the 

modeling, as well as the enforceability 

mechanism of each emission rate, is 

included in the TSD, which is included 

in the docket for this action. 

G. Summary of Results 

EPA evaluated two separate operating 

scenarios as part of its modeling 

analysis based on the separate limits 

proposed for U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2. 

In both scenarios, the modeling for the 

Detroit area showed a maximum 

concentration of 73.6 ppb (192.7 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)). 

This maximum concentration resulted 

from modeling all units at maximum 

permitted levels based on the proposed 

emission limits included in the FIP or 

already incorporated into Michigan’s 

SIP, or maximum uncontrolled 

emissions, newly adjusted comparably 

stringent 1-hour emission rates for DTE 

Trenton Channel, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 

Corporation, and DIG, and the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 33105 

background concentration previously 

described. Therefore, EPA proposes to 

conclude that this FIP provides for 

attainment in the Detroit area. 

VII. Other Plan Requirements 

A. Emissions Inventory 

EPA approved the base year emissions 

inventory for the Detroit area in its 

March 19, 2021 action. Therefore, a 

review of the emissions inventory is not 

included in the FIP. 

B. RACM/RACT and Enforceable 

Emission Limits 

CAA section 172(c)(1) states that 

nonattainment plans shall provide for 

the implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of RACT) and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards. For most 

criteria pollutants, RACT is control 

technology as needed to meet the 

NAAQS that is reasonably available 

considering technological and economic 

feasibility. However, the definition of 

RACT for SO2 is, simply, that control 

technology which is necessary to 

achieve the NAAQS (see 40 CFR 

51.100(o)). CAA section 172(c)(6) 

requires plans to include enforceable 

emissions limitations, and such other 

control measures as may be necessary or 

appropriate to provide for attainment of 

the NAAQS. In its March 19, 2021, 

rulemaking, EPA disapproved 

Michigan’s 2016 attainment plan 

because it relied on Michigan 

Administrative Code (MAC) 336.1430 

(‘‘Rule 430’’), which was invalidated 

and so was no longer an enforceable 

mechanism. Therefore, the plan could 

not be considered to provide an 

appropriate attainment demonstration, 

and it did not demonstrate RACM/ 

RACT or meet the requirement for 

necessary emissions limitations or 

control measures. The FIP for attaining 

the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Detroit 

area is based on a variety of measures, 

including permits for Carmeuse Lime 

(effective date of October 1, 2018) and 

DTE Trenton Channel (effective date of 

January 1, 2017) that have been 

incorporated into Michigan’s SIP, as 

well as the proposed regulatory 

language regarding U.S. Steel, EES Coke, 

Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation, and 

DIG emissions that will be enforceable 

upon finalization of this action. The FIP 

requires compliance two years after the 

effective date of this action for U.S. 

Steel Boilerhouse 2 and the effective 

date of this action for all other units. 

The two-year compliance schedule for 

U.S. Steel Boilerhouse 2 allows 90 days 

for the owner or operator to submit a 

construction permit application to the 

State of Michigan, as well as time for the 

State of Michigan to issue the permit, 

the owner or operator to send out 

requests for proposal and award a 

construction contract and procure 

materials, and for completion of 

construction. EPA proposes to 

determine that these measures suffice to 

provide for attainment and proposes to 

conclude that the FIP satisfies the 

requirement in sections 172(c)(1) and (6) 

to adopt and submit all RACM/RACT 

and emissions limitations or control 

measures as needed to attain the 

standards as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

C. NSR 

EPA affirmed in its March 19, 2021, 

action that NSR requirements had 

previously been met. Therefore, a 

review of the NSR requirements is not 

included in the FIP. 

D. RFP 

Section 171(1) of the CAA defines 

RFP as such annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant 

air pollutant as are required by part D 

or may reasonably be required by EPA 

for the purpose of ensuring attainment 

of the applicable NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. This 

definition is most appropriate for 

pollutants that are emitted by numerous 

and diverse sources, where the 

relationship between any individual 

source and the overall air quality is not 

explicitly quantified, and where the 

emission reductions necessary to attain 

the NAAQS are inventory-wide. (See 

EPA’s April 2014 SO2 nonattainment 

planning guidance, page 40.) For SO2,

there is usually a single ‘‘step’’ between 

pre-control nonattainment and postcontrol attainment. Therefore, for SO2, 

with its discernible relationship 

between emissions and air quality, and 

significant and immediate air quality 

improvements, RFP is best construed as 

adherence to an ambitious compliance 

schedule. (See General Preamble at 74 

FR 13547 (April 16, 1992)). 

In its March 19, 2021 rulemaking, 

EPA concluded that Michigan had not 

satisfied the requirement in section 

172(c)(2) to provide for RFP toward 

attainment. Michigan’s 2016 attainment 

plan did not demonstrate that the 

implementation of the control measures 

required under the plan were sufficient 

to provide for attainment of the NAAQS 

in the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area, 

as some control measures were not 

enforceable due to the invalidation of 

Rule 430. Therefore, a compliance 

schedule to implement those controls 

was not sufficient to provide for RFP. 

The FIP regulatory language requires 

compliance by two years after the 

effective date of this action for U.S. 

Steel Boilerhouse 2 and the effective 

date of this action for all other units. As 

described in section IV.B above, the 2- 

year compliance schedule for U.S. Steel 

Boilerhouse 2 allows 90 days for the 

owner or operator to submit a 

construction permit application to the 

State of Michigan, as well as time for the 

State of Michigan to issue the permit, 

the owner or operator to send out 

requests for proposal and award a 

construction contract and procure 

materials, and for completion of 

construction. For DTE Trenton Channel 

and Carmeuse lime, compliance was 

required by January 1, 2017, and 

October 1, 2018, respectively. EPA 

concludes that this is an ambitious 

compliance schedule, as described in 

April 2014 guidance for SO2

nonattainment plans, and that this plan 

therefore provides for RFP in 

accordance with the approach to RFP 

described in EPA’s 2014 guidance. 

E. Contingency Measures 

EPA guidance describes special 

features of SO2 planning that influence 

the suitability of alternative means of 

addressing the requirement in section 

172(c)(9) for contingency measures for 

SO2, such that in particular an 

appropriate means of satisfying this 

requirement is for the air agency to have 

a comprehensive enforcement program 

that identifies sources of violations of 

the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an 

aggressive follow-up for compliance and 

enforcement. (See EPA’s April 2014 SO2

nonattainment planning guidance, page 

41.) The FIP provides for satisfying the 

contingency measure requirement in 

this manner, and EPA will be 

responsible for enforcement unless 

Michigan seeks to take delegation of the 

FIP. EPA’s enforcement authority is 

contained in section 113(a) of the CAA. 

Options include: The issuance of an 

administrative order requiring 

compliance with the applicable 

implementation plan; the issuance of an 

administrative order requiring the 

payment of a civil penalty for past 

violations; and the commencement of a 

civil judicial action. 

VIII. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing a FIP for attaining 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the Detroit 

area and for meeting other 

nonattainment area planning 

requirements. In accordance with 

section 172 of the CAA, this FIP 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33106 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

includes an attainment demonstration 

for the Detroit area and addresses 

requirements for RFP, RACT/RACM, 

enforceable emission limitations and 

control measures, and contingency 

measures. EPA has previously 

concluded that Michigan has addressed 

the requirements for emissions 

inventories for the Detroit area and 

nonattainment area NSR. 

The FIP is based on the Carmeuse 

Lime emission limits specified in Permit 

to Install 193–14A, the DTE Trenton 

Channel emission limits specified in 

Permit to Install 125–11C, and the U.S. 

Steel, EES Coke, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 

Corporation, and DIG emission limits 

specified in the proposed regulatory 

language of this FIP. The Carmeuse 

Lime and DTE Trenton Channel permits 

have already been incorporated into 

Michigan’s SIP, so EPA is not proposing 

to re-incorporate them into 40 CFR part 

52 here. 

EPA is taking public comments for 

forty-five days following the publication 

of this proposed action in the Federal 

Register. EPA will take all comments 

into consideration in the final action. If 

this FIP is finalized, it would satisfy 

EPA’s duty to promulgate a FIP for the 

area under CAA section 110(c) that 

resulted from the previous finding of 

failure to submit. However, it would not 

affect the sanctions clock started under 

CAA section 179 resulting from EPA’s 

partial disapproval of the prior SIP, 

which would be terminated by an EPA 

rulemaking approving a revised SIP. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 13563 

This action is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). As discussed in detail in section 

B below, the proposed FIP regulatory 

language contains requirements only for 

four facilities. It is therefore not a rule 

of general applicability. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a 

‘‘collection of information’’ is defined as 

a requirement for ‘‘answers to . . . 

identical reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on ten or more 

persons . . .’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). 

Because the proposed FIP applies to just 

four facilities, the Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c). 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. The OMB 

control numbers for our regulations in 

40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed action on small 

entities, I certify that this proposed 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. EPA’s 

proposal adds additional controls to 

certain sources. None of these sources 

are owned by small entities, and 

therefore are not small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be economically 

significant as defined under Executive 

Order 12866; and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. EPA 

interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the E.O. has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This action is not subject 

to E.O. 13045 because it is not 

economically significant under 

Executive Order 12866 and because it 

implements specific standards 

established by Congress in statutes. 

However, to the extent this proposed 

rule will limit SO2 emissions, the rule 

will have a beneficial effect on 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 33107 

14See https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/overviewdemographic-indicators-ejscreen for the definition 

of each demographic indicator. 

children’s health by reducing air 

pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

This proposed rule, if finalized, 

would improve local air quality by 

reducing SO2 emissions in a part of the 

Detroit metropolitan area that includes 

a higher proportion of minority and 

low-income populations compared to 

the State or US averages. Socioeconomic 

indicators such as low income, 

unemployment rate and percentage of 

people of color 14 were all at levels at 

least two times that of the state-wide 

averages (in some cases two to five 

times higher), within one to six miles 

from facilities affected by this action 

(see EJScreen analyses provided in the 

docket for this action). These 

populations, as well as all affected 

populations in this area, will stand to 

benefit from the increased level of 

environmental protection with the 

implementation of this rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations. 

Michael Regan, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 52 as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.1189 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1189 Control strategy: Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2). 

(a) The plan submitted by the State on 

May 31, 2016 to attain the 2010 1-hour 

primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) national 

ambient air quality standard for the 

Detroit SO2 nonattainment area does not 

meet the requirements of Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 172 with respect to SO2

emissions from the U.S. Steel (Ecorse 

and Zug Island), EES Coke, ClevelandCliffs Steel Corporation (formerly AK or 

Severstal Steel), and Dearborn Industrial 

Generation (DIG) facilities in the Detroit, 

Michigan area. These requirements for 

these four facilities are satisfied by 40 

CFR 52.1189(b)–(e), respectively. 

(b) This section addresses and 

satisfies CAA section 172 requirements 

for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area 

by specifying the necessary emission 

limits and other control measures 

applicable to the U.S. Steel (Ecorse and 

Zug Island) facility. This section applies 

to the owner and operator of the facility 

located at 1 Quality Drive and 1300 Zug 

Island Road in Detroit, Michigan. 

(1) SO2 Emission Limits. 

(i) Beginning on the effective date of 

the FIP, no owner or operator shall emit 

SO2 from the following units in excess 

of the following limits: 

Unit SO2 emission 

limit (lbs/hr) 

Boilerhouse 1 (all stacks combined) ................................................................................................................................................... 55.00 

Hot Strip Mill—Slab Reheat Furnace 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.31 

Hot Strip Mill—Slab Reheat Furnace 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.31 

Hot Strip Mill—Slab Reheat Furnace 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.31 

Hot Strip Mill—Slab Reheat Furnace 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.31 

Hot Strip Mill—Slab Reheat Furnace 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.31 

No. 2 Baghouse ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.30 

Main Plant Boiler No. 8 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.07 

Main Plant Boiler No. 9 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.07 

A1 Blast Furnace ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.00 

B2 Blast Furnace ................................................................................................................................................................................. 40.18 

D4 Blast Furnace ................................................................................................................................................................................. 40.18 

A/B Blast Furnace Flares .................................................................................................................................................................... 60.19 

D Furnace Flare ................................................................................................................................................................................... 60.19 

(ii) Beginning two years after the 

effective date of the FIP, no owner or 

operator shall emit SO2 from 

Boilerhouse 2 in excess of the following 

limits: 

(A) When Boilerhouse 2 is the only 

unit operating at the facility, an 

emission limit of 750.00 lbs/hr. When 

any unit identified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) 

of this section is operating in addition 

to Boilerhouse 2, an emission limit of 

81.00 lbs/hr. 

(2) Stack Restrictions and Permit 

Requirements. 

(i) The owner or operator shall 

construct a combined stack for all 

Boilerhouse 2 emission points. The 

stack emission point must be at least 

170 feet above ground level. The owner 

or operator shall submit a construction 

permit application for the stack to the 

State of Michigan within 90 days of the 

effective date of the FIP. Where any 

compliance obligation under this 

section requires any other state or local 

permits or approvals, the owner or 

operator shall submit timely and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
33108 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

complete applications and take all other 

actions necessary to obtain all such 

permits or approvals. 

(ii) Beginning two years after the 

effective date of the FIP, no owner or 

operator shall emit SO2 from 

Boilerhouse 2, except from the stack 

emission point at least 170 feet above 

ground level. 

(3) Monitoring Requirements. 

(i) Not later than two years after the 

effective date of the FIP, the owner or 

operator shall install and continuously 

operate an SO2 continuous emission 

monitoring system (CEMS) to measure 

SO2 emissions from Boilerhouse 2 in 

conformance with 40 CFR part 60 

appendix F procedure 1. 

(ii) The owner or operator shall 

determine SO2 emissions from 

Boilerhouse 1, Hot Strip Mill Slab 

Reheat Furnaces 1–5, Main Plant Boiler 

No. 8, Main Plan Boiler No. 9, A1 Blast 

Furnace, B2 Blast Furnace, D4 Blast 

Furnace, A/B Blast Furnace Flares, and 

D Furnace Flare using mass balance 

calculations as described in paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section. 

(iii) Within 180 days of the 

installation of the CEMS specified in 

paragraph (b)(3)(i), the owner or 

operator shall perform an initial 

compliance test for SO2 emissions from 

Boilerhouse 2 while the boilerhouse is 

operating in accordance with 

requirements identified in either 

paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii), 

whichever is applicable during the 

period of testing. The initial compliance 

test shall be performed using EPA Test 

Method 6 at 40 CFR part 60 appendix 

A–4. 

(4) Compliance Assurance Plan. To 

determine compliance with the limits in 

paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the 

owner or operator shall calculate hourly 

SO2 emissions using all raw material 

sulfur charged into each affected 

emission unit and assume 100 percent 

conversion of total sulfur to SO2. The 

owner or operator shall implement a 

compliance assurance plan (CAP) for all 

units except Boilerhouse 2 and any 

idled units that shall specify the 

calculation methodology, procedures, 

and inputs used in these calculations 

and submit the plan to EPA within 30 

days after the effective date of the FIP. 

The owner or operator must submit a 

list of idled units to EPA within 30 days 

of the effective date of the FIP. The 

owner or operator must submit a CAP 

for any idled units prior to resuming 

operations. 

(5) Recordkeeping. The owner/ 

operator shall maintain the following 

records continuously for five years 

beginning on the effective date of the 

FIP: 

(i) All records of production for each 

affected emission unit. 

(ii) All records of hourly emissions 

calculated in accordance with the CAP. 

(iii) In accordance with paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section, all CEMS data, 

including the date, place, and time of 

sampling or measurement; parameters 

sampled or measured; and results. 

(iv) Records of quality assurance and 

quality control activities for emission 

monitoring systems including, but not 

limited to, any records required by 40 

CFR part 60 appendix F Procedure 1. 

(v) Records of all major maintenance 

activities performed on emission units, 

air pollution control equipment, CEMS, 

and other production measurement 

devices. 

(vi) Any other records required by the 

Quality Assurance Requirements for Gas 

Continuous Emission Monitoring 

Systems Used for Compliance 

Determination rule at 40 CFR part 60 

appendix F Procedure 1 or the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel 

Manufacturing Facilities rule at 40 CFR 

part 63 Subpart FFFFF. 

(6) Reporting. Beginning on the 

effective date of the FIP, all reports 

under this section shall be submitted 

quarterly to Compliance Tracker, Air 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, Mail Code AE–17J, 77 

W Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604– 

3590. 

(i) The owner or operator shall submit 

a CAP in accordance with paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section within 30 days of 

the effective date of the FIP. 

(ii) The owner or operator shall report 

CEMS data and hourly mass balance 

calculations quarterly in accordance 

with CEMS requirements in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section and the CAP 

requirements set forth in paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section no later than the 

30th day following the end of each 

calendar quarter. 

(iii) The owner or operator shall 

report the results of the initial 

compliance test for the Boilerhouse 2 

stack within 60 days of conducting the 

test. 

(iv) The owner or operator shall 

submit quarterly excess emissions 

reports for all units identified in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section no later than the 30th day 

following the end of each calendar 

quarter. Excess emissions means 

emissions that exceed the emission 

limits specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. The reports shall include 

the magnitude, date(s), and duration of 

each period of excess emissions, 

specific identification of each period of 

excess emissions that occurs during all 

periods of operation including startups, 

shutdowns, and malfunctions of the 

unit, the nature and cause of any 

malfunction (if known), and the 

corrective action taken or preventative 

measures adopted. 

(v) The owner or operator of each unit 

shall submit quarterly CEMS 

performance reports, to include dates 

and duration of each period during 

which the CEMS was inoperative 

(except for zero and span adjustments 

and calibration checks), reason(s) why 

the CEMS was inoperative and steps 

taken to prevent recurrence, and any 

CEMS repairs or adjustments no later 

than the 30th day following the end of 

each calendar quarter. 

(vi) The owner or operator shall also 

submit results of any CEMS 

performance tests required by 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1 (e.g., 

Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative 

Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas 

Audits) no later than 30 days after the 

test is performed. 

(vii) When no excess emissions have 

occurred or the CEMS has not been 

inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during 

the reporting period, such information 

shall be stated in the quarterly reports 

required by paragraph (b)(6) of this 

section.(c) This section addresses and 

satisfies CAA section 172 requirements 

for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area 

by specifying the necessary emission 

limits and other control measures 

applicable to the EES Coke facility. This 

section applies to the owner and 

operator of the facility located at 1400 

Zug Island Road in Detroit, Michigan. 

(1) SO2 Emission Limits. Beginning on 

the effective date of the FIP, no owner 

or operator shall emit SO2 from the 

Underfire Combustion Stack EUCokeBattery in excess of 544.6 lbs/hr, as a 3- 

hour average, or 2,071 tons per year, on 

a 12-month rolling basis as determined 

at the end of each calendar month, or 

0.702 pounds per 1,000 standard cubic 

feet of coke oven gas, as a 1-hour 

average. 

(2) Monitoring requirements. The 

owner or operator shall maintain and 

operate in a satisfactory manner a 

device to monitor and record the SO2

emissions from the Underfire 

Combustion Stack EUCoke-Battery on a 

continuous basis. The owner or operator 

shall use Continuous Emission Rate 

Monitoring (CERM) data for determining 

compliance with the hourly limit in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The 

owner or operator shall operate the 

CERM system in conformance with 40 

CFR part 60 Appendix F. 

(d) This section addresses and 

satisfies CAA section 172 requirements 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 33109 

for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area 

by specifying the necessary emission 

limits and other control measures 

applicable to the Cleveland-Cliffs Steel 

Corporation (formerly AK or Severstal 

Steel) facility. This section applies to 

the owner and operator of the facility 

located at 4001 Miller Road in Dearborn, 

Michigan. 

(1) SO2 Emission Limits. Beginning on 

the effective date of the FIP, no owner 

or operator shall emit SO2 from the 

following units in excess of the 

following limits: 

Unit SO2 emission limit Time period/operating scenario 

‘‘B’’ Blast Furnace Baghouse Stack ......................... 71.9 lbs/hr .............. Calendar day average. 

‘‘B’’ Blast Furnace Stove Stack ................................ 38.75 lbs/hr ............ Calendar day average. 

‘‘B’’ Blast Furnace Baghouse and Stove Stacks 

(combined).

77.8 lbs/hr .............. Calendar day average. 

‘‘B’’ Blast Furnace Baghouse and Stove Stacks 

(combined).

340 tons per year .. 12-month rolling time period as determined at the end of each calendar month. 

‘‘C’’ Blast Furnace Baghouse Stack ......................... 179.65 lbs/hr .......... Calendar day average. 

‘‘C’’ Blast Furnace Stove Stack ................................ 193.6 lbs/hr ............ Calendar day average. 

‘‘C’’ Blast Furnace Baghouse and Stove Stacks 

(combined).

271.4 lbs/hr ............ Calendar day average. 

‘‘C’’ Blast Furnace Baghouse and Stove Stacks 

(combined).

1188 tons per year 12-month rolling time period as determined at the end of each calendar month. 

(2) Monitoring Requirements. The 

owner or operator shall maintain and 

operate in a satisfactory manner a 

device to monitor and record the SO2

emissions and flow from ‘‘B’’ Blast 

Furnace and ‘‘C’’ Blast Furnace 

Baghouse and Stove Stacks on a 

continuous basis. The owner or operator 

shall use CERM data for determining 

compliance with the hourly limits in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The 

owner or operator shall operate the 

CERM system in conformance with 40 

CFR part 60 Appendix F. 

(e) This section addresses and 

satisfies CAA section 172 requirements 

for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment area 

by specifying the necessary emission 

limits and other control measures 

applicable to the Dearborn Industrial 

Generation (DIG) facility. This section 

applies to the owner and operator of the 

facility located at 2400 Miller Road in 

Dearborn, Michigan. 

(1) SO2 Emission Limits. 

(i) Beginning on the effective date of 

the FIP, no owner or operator shall emit 

SO2 from the following units in excess 

of the following limits: 

Unit SO2 emission limit Time period/operating scenario 

Boilers 1, 2, and 3 (combined) ................................ 420 lbs/hr .................. Daily average. 

Boilers 1, 2, and 3 (combined) ................................ 1,839.6 tons per year 12-month rolling time period. 

Boilers 1, 2, and 3 and Flares 1 and 2 (combined) 840 lbs/hr .................. Daily average. 

Boilers 1, 2, and 3 and Flares 1 and 2 (combined) 2,947.7 tons per year 12-month rolling time period as determined at the end of each calendar month. 

(2) Monitoring Requirements. The 

owner or operator shall maintain and 

operate in a satisfactory manner a 

device to monitor and record the SO2

emissions from Boilers 1, 2, and 3 on a 

continuous basis. Installation and 

operation of each CEMS shall meet the 

timelines, requirements and reporting 

detailed in 40 CFR part 60 Appendix F. 

If the owner or operator chooses to use 

a Predictive Emissions Monitoring 

System (PEMS) in lieu of a CEMS to 

monitor SO2 emissions, the permittee 

shall follow the protocol delineated in 

Performance Specification 16 in 

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 60. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11269 Filed 5–31–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

[ET Docket Nos. 14–165, 20–36, 04–186 and 

GN Docket No. 12–268 ; FCC 22–6; FR ID 

85914] 

Unlicensed Operations in the 

Television Bands, Repurposed 600 

MHz Band, 600 MHz Guard Bands and 

Duplex Gap, and Channel 37; 

Expanding the Economic and 

Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum 

Through Incentive Auctions; 

Unlicensed White Space Device 

Operations in the Television Bands; 

Unlicensed Operation in the TV 

Broadcast Bands 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission’s proposes to seek 

comment on the database re-check 

interval that should apply to 

narrowband fixed and Mode II personal/ 

portable white space devices and to 

mobile white space devices, which were 

first authorized by the Commission in 

2020. In particular, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether these types 

of devices, which operate in the TV 

bands, should be subject to the hourly 

re-check interval the Commission 

requires for fixed and Mode II personal 

portable devices in the TV bands, the 

daily re-check interval to which these 

devices are currently subject, or some 

other re-check interval. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

July 1, 2022 and reply comments are 

due on or before August 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ET Docket No. 14–165, GN 

Docket No. 12–268, ET Docket No. 20– 

36, or ET Docket No. 04–186 by any of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1